Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords](SUSPENSION)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That so much of the Lords Message [24th July] as relates to the Cheshire County Council Bill [Lords], the County of Merseyside Bill [Lords], the West Midlands County Council Bill [Lords], and the West Yorkshire Bill [Lords] be now considered.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means]

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I must deal first with the remaining private business.

Later—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you can give us some guidance on the first item, to which we objected. Are you able to protect the rights of Back Benchers by insisting that the promoters table a carry-over motion next Session rather than in this Session? By tabling the motion in this Session they have made it extremely difficult to have it debated because of the pressure on time, whereas if they had chosen to use the procedure that allows them to table the carry-over motion next Session they might have made it much more possible for hon. Members to debate the motion.

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the agents and the Chairman of Ways and Means rather than for me.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (SELBY) BILL

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the British Railways (Selby) Bill shall have leave to suspend Proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further Proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date he paid:

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House:

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a Declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House:

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time:

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any Proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session:

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

To be communicated to the Lords, and their concurrence desired thereto.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Washington, DC

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans next to visit Washington, DC.

The Minister of State, Foreign acid Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frank Judd): My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit Washington in the near future.

Mr. Ridley: Will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend to reinstate the chief information officer in the embassy in America? The grounds that he was sacked upon, that he had not peddled Labour Party propaganda, are totally


unacceptable to all right-thinking people. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we would rather have Mr. O'Keefe than Dr. Goebbels?

Mr. Judd: The hon. Gentleman is singularly ill informed on this matter. The official to whom he refers was in no way sacked. As often happens with overseas appointments, Mr. O'Keefe was asked to move before the time that he anticipated being moved. That frequently happens in the course of diplomatic service.

Mr. MacFarquhar: When my right hon. Friend visits Washington, will he take steps to confirm with President Carter that the American Administration has no objection to the sale of defensive weapons by the United Kingdom to China? Will he tell the President then and this House now which weapons Her Majesty's Government are prepared to sell to China?

Mr. Judd: I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that this is neither the time nor the place to go into the detail that he raises. The issue of policy in general terms is one that we keep constantly under review.

Mr. Hurd: The Minister has not met the main point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). Proposals to make economies in the British information services are one thing and the widely reported proposals to impose political censorship on press bulletins are another. Will the hon. Gentleman give a categorical denial that that is intended?

Mr. Judd: I am afraid that on this issue the hon. Gentleman is, uncharacteristically, as ill-informed as his hon. Friend the Member for Circencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).

Mr. Hurd: It is in the newspapers.

Mr. Judd: With great respect, it is not always wise to believe everything that we read in the press. The officer concerned was in no way sacked. Secondly, there is no question of censorship. In the course of an inspection by Foreign Office inspectors as long ago as last year, it was recommended by them that something should be done on this front.

Mr. Ridley: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's replies,

I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

New York

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to pay an official visit to New York.

Mr. Judd: My right hon. Friend regrets very much that he had to miss Questions today, but he has flown to New York for an urgent meeting on Namibia.

Mr. Adley: On the issue of the British information services in New York, and Mr. O'Keefe, is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people equally well informed as himself take a different view of Mr. O'Keefe's dismissal? When overseas quango Jay finishes the round-Britain yacht race in his yacht Norvantes "[HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap".] Cheap it is not. When he finishes the race, will the Minister tell him that there is widespread concern about the way in which Mr. O'Keefe's dismissal has been handled? Will he tell our ambassador in Washington that his behaviour is an abuse of his power, whomsoever his father-in-law may be?

Mr. Judd: I can only repeat that the hon. Gentleman would do well to get his facts right. There is no question of a dismissal. Frequently those who serve in the Diplomatic Service move from one appointment to another earlier than anticipated. Secondly, we must all recognise that from time to time, in the context, for example, of the CPRS review of the future of our Foreign Service, it naturally becomes necessary to make readjustments in the deployment of our resources. That is all that is happening.

Mr. Newens: Can my hon. Friend say whether there has been any communication with the United States Administration about the fraudulent character of the elections in Bolivia? Will he take this opportunity to add his voice to that of the United States Administration by denouncing these elections, expressing concern at the seizure of power by one of the candidates in the election, and calling for new and fair elections, in which at least no more people vote than are on the electoral register?

Mr. Judd: I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are deeply committed to the cause of democracy. In Bolivia, as anywhere else, we want to see democracy operating as effectively and fully as it can, not only legally but in spirit. We deeply regret infringements of the democratic process anywhere in the world.

Mr. John Davies: The Minister of State has excused his right hon. Friend for his inability to be here today. We fully understand that. Since the severe problem of Namibia is involved, will the Minister make it abundantly clear that the report that the Government deliberately misled the South African Government over the subject of Walvis Bay is untrue?

Mr. Judd: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for the way in which he accepts my right hon. Friend's absence. I assure him that any reports of this kind are totally unfounded.

Zaire

Mr. George Rodgers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on foreign involvement in Zaire.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Edward Rowlands): The Government welcome the steps taken by African leaders to improve relations between Zaire and Angola and believe that this is an important step towards resolving the problems which have led to foreign intervention in Zaire.

Mr. Rodgers: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are widespread press reports of Cuban and Soviet involvement in the Zaire uprising? Will he take this opportunity to confirm or correct those reports?

Mr. Rowlands: As I have said before, we have no direct or clear evidence about any Cuban involvement in the invasion of Shaba. Cuba could have been involved in the organisation of it in Angola. But that is water under the bridge now. The most constructive and valuable contribution was the meeting between President Neto and President Mobuto in Khartoum recently.

Mr. Blaker: Is it true that because of defence cuts the British Government would be unable to organise a parachute drop

of the kind made by the French and Belgian Governments in Zaire if it were necessary to save British subjects?

Mr. Rowlands: The Prime Minister has answered that question on many occasions since the Shaba incident.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does my hon. Friend agree that the logical consequence of the Leader of the Opposition's rather emotional and hysterical demand that we should stand up to Russian and Cuban intervention in Africa is the potential involvement of Britain in a Vietnam type of situation in Africa and, certainly, the involvement of British troops and possibly conscription?

Mr. Rowlands: There are considerable differences between the two sides about the way to handle the African situation. We believe in the line that we have been taking. That line is supported throughout Africa. We believe that the countries concerned should resolve their own problems.

Mr. Rifkind: Does the Minister agree that it is in the vital interest of Zaire and the western world that copper production in Shaba Province should be brought to full capacity as soon as possible? What discussions are taking place with the Zaire Government to try to encourage European technicians to return to Shaba as soon as possible?

Mr. Rowlands: The French and Belgian Governments have been involved in this issue more than we have. Our role in the copper developments in Shaba was small and we sent few people there. We are in close consultation with our partners on issues of this kind.

Mr. John Davies: There is no doubt on the Opposition side of the House that it is desirable for African problems to be solved within Africa. Is not that all the more reason for us to take the most vehement action to get the Cubans out?

Hon. Members: How?

Mr. Rowlands: It is right to challenge new forms of imperialism of the Soviet and Cuban type in Africa. But the right hon. Member's recommendation about a western-sponsored European paramilitary organisation is completely antipathetic and is deeply resented by most of the people in Africa.

Rhodesia

Miss Joan Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the breaching of oil sanctions against Rhodesia.

Mr. Rowlands: My right hon. Friend has already indicated to the House that he intends to make a statement as soon as he has received and studied Mr. Thomas Bingham's report on the supply of petroleum products to Rhodesia.

Miss Lestor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the breaking of oil sanctions in relation to Rhodesia both by the companies involved and by South Africa is another way of fuelling Ian Smith's war machine? Does he agree that if Opposition Members are concerned about foreign involvement in Southern Africa and Rhodesia, they should be equally concerned at the way in which the breaking of oil sanctions is helping to build up Ian Smith's war machine?

Mr. Rowlands: We are deeply concerned about any breaches of sanctions in Rhodesia. That is why we established the Bingham inquiry, why we take the matter seriously, and why we shall deal with the matter as urgently as possible.

Mr. Broeklebank-Fowler: Has the Minister seen the report in today's Daily Mail about the security position in Rhodesia? Will he come clean with the House, particularly since the safety of British citizens may be involved? Will he now spell out what positive action the Government will take to bring about reconciliation in that country in order to avoid large-scale disaster?

Mr. Rowlands: It would be wrong and inappropriate to speculate on contingency plans of the type referred to in press reports such as that in the Daily Mail today. The positive nature of our policy is clear. The only way forward is to bring all the parties together in an all-party conference and to gain a broader degree of agreement than exists in respect of the internal settlement.

Mr. Faulds: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are suspicions abroad that the Bingham report is being delayed because it may implicate certain British oil com-

panics and certain hon. Members of the House?

Mr. Rowlands: I reject entirely the suggestion that there are deliberate attempts to delay the report. Mr. Bingham has tried to conduct the complicated and detailed inquiry with the utmost urgency. We hope that the report will be received within the next month.

Mr. Ronald Bell: If any persons are found to have supplied oil to Rhodesia, may they be recommended for a signal honour?

Mr. Rowlands: No. They may well have made a contribution to the problems that now face Rhodesia.

Belize

Mr. Durant: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent developments on the negotiations between the United Kingdom Government and Guatemala over the territorial integrity of Belize.

Mr. Rowlands: We are in touch with both Government and Opposition in Belize and with the new Guatemalan Government about the next stage in negotiations. Representatives of the Belize Government and Opposition will be present at all negotiations. Any settlement proposals will be put to the people of Belize in a referendum.

Mr. Durant: I welcome the last part of the Minister's reply, in which he said that any decisions will involve the people of Belize. May we have an assurance that nothing will be decided when the House is not sitting and that no decision about the future of this important little country will be decided without the House being fully involved?

Mr. Rowlands: Of course I can give that assurance. In order for Belize to become independent, legislation is required. That means that any proposal or settlement must come before the House.

Mr. Newens: Are we clearly standing by the principle of the full territorial integrity of Belize? Has the United States Administration now accepted this principle, and is it giving assistance by putting it across to Guatemala?

Mr. Rowlands: I do not think that we should slam doors on any possible developments that may emerge in future negotiations. The greatest safeguard for the people of Belize is that they themselves must approve by referendum any political settlement, and that this House must also give its approval.

Mr. Luce: It is obviously to be hoped that there will be an agreement in the next few months between the new Government of Guatemala, the British and the Belizeans. May I support and welcome the fact that the Minister has made it quite clear that there will be no change in the position of the Belizeans without their full consent?

Mr. Rowlands: I thank the hon. Member.

Middle East (Peace Talks)

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the progress of the Middle East peace talks.

Mr. Walters: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's reaction to the talks held in London between the Foreign Ministers of Egypt and Israel.

Mr. Judd: The United Kingdom was not a party to the talks, but we were glad to be able to offer the facilities of Leeds Castle. We believe that the meetings there helped the two sides to reach a closer understanding of each other's position, and should pave the way for further discussions in the coming weeks.

Mr. Goodhart: Does the Minister agree that the Government of Jordan should be directly represented in any serious discussion on the future of the West Bank? Did the Foreign Secretary discuss this point with King Hussein during the King's recent visit to this country?

Mr. Judd: We believe strongly that a viable solution will depend on commitment by all the parties in the area. Obviously the involvement of the Jordanian Government would help in that process. It is, however, for the Jordanian Government to decide at which point to commit themselves to discussions.

Mr. Walters: Since perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the talks was the continuing negative attitude of the Israeli Government about withdrawal from the occupied territories, will the Minister now consider putting forward with the other members of the EEC a proposal that there should be a period of international trusteeship for the West Bank and Gaza following an Israeli withdrawal?

Mr. Judd: We are prepared to consider any constructive ideas. We do not feel that this is the precise moment at which to put forward a new initiative of that kind, but we are willing to keep any proposals under consideration. It is quite clear that the Government's view is that, in the spirit of resolution 242, a solution will depend on the willingness of Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.

Mr. Roy Hughes: is it not clear that the former terrorist Begin and his Government are intent on holding on to all the occupied territories, including Jerusalem and the West Bank? Is it not a fact that they also want peace, but that this is just not on? Does my hon. Friend agree that if Israel is to continue to exist it will have to change its attitude?

Mr. Judd: I think that, on reflection, my hon. Friend will agree that at this time we should all be making constructive observations in the hope that we can help a solution forward. Inflammatory language is best avoided at the moment. The Government's view is that it is in the interests not only of the international community but of Israel itself that Israel should face up to the implications of resolution 242 and accept the need for withdrawal from the occupied territories.

Mr. Aitken: If the Minister would like to make a constructive observation this afternoon, would he care to follow the example of Senator Jacob Javits, who had the courage to say quite firmly that he thought that obstructive tactics were being used by the Begin Government? Surely the British Government should be aware that Mr. Begin's insistence on the Old Testament claims to Judea and Samaria, as he calls them, instead of on meaningful negotiations on the future of the West Bank, is contrary to Western interests, and is probably contrary to


Israel's interests too. Should not the Minister say so?

Mr. Judd: The most helpful way in which the British and any other Government can help is to emphasise the positive actions that need to be taken in finding a way forward. In that context we have made it plain that we do not accept the Israeli case about, for example, settlements in the occupied territories, and that we believe them to be unhelpful. We have made it plain that we believe that it is necessary to make progress on the lines of resolution 242 in achieving an Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories.

Mr. Hooley: Does my hon. Friend agree that one constructive step would be to strengthen the authority and effectiveness of the United Nations peacekeeping force in Southern Lebanon, which is being obstructed by a militia armed and financed by Israel?

Mr. Judd: I pay tribute to the United Nations force in Southern Lebanon, which, against very difficult odds, is behaving with considerable effectiveness and with distinction. If it is able to fulfil its task, and if all parties will cooperate in enabling it to do so, it will indirectly assist in the process of finding a solution in the Middle East, because it will regenerate confidence in the practical contribution that can be made by the international community through the United Nations.

Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on negotiations for force reductions in Europe.

Mr. Judd: In response to the Western initiative in April, the Warsaw Pact direct participants in the negotiations on mutual and balanced force reductions tabled counter-proposals on 8th June. They represent the most significant Eastern move since the negotiations began, and we welcome the evident effort to meet some Western concerns. The proposals are complex, however, and require further clarification. Of the many issues which remain unresolved, the most notable is the fundamental question of the size of the forces to be reduced.

Mr. Allaun: Will the Minister press HMG—

Mr. Alan Clark: What is HMG?

Mr. Allman: Mind your own business.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I always do that.

Mr. Allaun: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, I intended no reflection on the Chair.
Will Her Majesty's Government press hard for agreement and not lose the breakthrough which occurred recently? In spite of the Russian offer to reduce its forces by more than the West, did not the NATO report of 19th July allege serious flaws? I want to know whether NATO really wants an agreement. I think that the British Government do, hut I am not so sure about NATO.

Mr. Judd: The British Government and, I believe, our NATO partners are determined to secure meaningful progress in the context of MBFR. Our view is that other measures for detente will be undermined if we cannot make progress on the military front. However, we want substantial, not illusory, progress. One of the biggest difficulties at the moment is the disparity in the calculations about the size of the forces on the two sides. That needs to be cleared up before we can make progress.

Sir Frederic Bennett: Since it is now suggested that the forces ranged against each other are not as was described in the Government's White Paper, which showed a heavy Russian preponderance in conventional arms and equipment over our own, is the Minister saying today that Her Majesty's Government stand by tae White Paper review of the situation? Or is he saying that they are beginning to doubt whether, as some Labour Members have said, the forces of the Soviet Union are not vastly superior to our own?

Mr. Judd: I must take up the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. It is open to the charge of ambiguity. We are quite certain that the quality of our forces is second to none, but in quantitative terms, as we see it, the Warsaw Pact numbers of ground forces are at present 150,000 greater than ours on that front, and the ratio in tanks is 2·7:1.

Mr. James Lamond: If our forces are qualitatively superior to those of the


Warsaw Pact, and in view of the importance laid upon this matter by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his speech to the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament, does my hon. Friend think that it was helpful in any way towards achieving agreement on these matters for NATO to have agreed in Washington, just before the Special Session, progressively to increase its armaments over a period exceeding the next 10 years?

Mr, Judd: The firm decision of the NATO Alliance to increase arms expenditure was taken reluctantly though necessarily because of a lack of meaningful progress in the disarmament negotiations. As a Minister who is second to nobody in Whitehall in a commitment to multilateral and effective disarmament, I believe that that can be achieved only in the context of firmness and of a clear indication to the Russians and their partners in the Warsaw Pact that if meaningful progress does not come about through mutual agreement we must take whatever measures are necessary to maintain our security.

Mr. John Davies: Will the Minister of State please say when the level of discussion will be raised to the level of Foreign Ministers, as the Prime Minister announced to the House some time ago?

Mr. Judd: As the right hon. Gentleman will recall, what happened was that this proposal was put by us to our NATO partners at the summit conference. They accepted that this should be done when sufficient progress had been made at the technical level to make a meeting of Foreign Ministers worth while. Unfortunately, that point has not yet been reached, but as soon as it is reached I am sure that we shall go ahead with the conference.

Indonesia (Mr. W. S. Rendra)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the letter from the Minister of State to the hon. Member for Putney, in which the view was expressed that the Indonesian playwright, W. S. Rendra, should either be brought to trial without delay or released.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard): No, Sir, but my hon. Friend is at liberty to publish it if he so wishes.

Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. However, as he is aware, the Government have prepared a sort of league table of the degree to which human rights are repressed in various countries. Why is it that the Government will not publish that league table?

Mr. Luard: Because we do not consider it in the interests of our foreign relations generally to publish this table. The table was compiled for our own purposes for making decisions concerning human rights policy.

Mr. Alan Clark: Is this not one more ludicrous example of the apparently unlimited capacity of Her Majesty's Government to sound off about the way in which foreign Governments treat their own nationals and call the odds about who should or should not be brought to trial, what sentences they should receive, and so on? What possible interest can it be to the people whom we represent here how foreign Governments treat their own citizens? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] World government may or may not be desirable, but it is no good behaving as though it is already in existence.

Mr. Luard: I am glad to say that I do not think that the hon. Member represents the views and feelings of the vast majority of the people of this country. I do not think that his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench would in any way endorse his suggestion that the people of this country are not concerned about, for example, recent events and recent trials in the Soviet Union, or the trial in Indonesia which was raised on this Question, and many other matters. We certainly are concerned about those matters. As for the hon. Member's suggestion that I have been sounding off on this question, in fact I made no statement at all about the situation.

Mr. Kinnock: Will my hon. Friend disregard the remarks of lumpen and insular reactionaries such as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) and acknowledge the generally self-evident truth —at least, self-evident to all people who profess support for democracy—that we


sustain our own freedoms best by trying to expand those of others?

Mr. Luard: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has just said. I am quite sure that the vast majority of the people of this country expect their Government to express firmly the views and feelings which they hold about human rights violations in all parts of the world.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is it not a fact that within the last 24 hours Indonesia has released no fewer than 4,000 political prisoners? If that is true, should not the hon. Gentleman turn his attention to other countries that have political prisoners, such as the Soviet Union, and to countries whose Governments claim to have political prisoners, such as that of Mr. Andrew Young, even if they have not got them?

Mr. Luard: It is perfectly true that the Indonesian Government have announced a programme of releases of political prisoners. They are planning to release 10,000 this year and, I believe, a further 10,000 next year. I warmly congratulate the Indonesian Government on that programme. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it would he very desirable if many other Governments who hold political prisoners would follow a similar course.

Diplomatic Bags

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied that diplomatic bags are not being used to import arms into the United Kingdom illegally; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. John Tomlinson): The Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, to which the United Kingdom is a party, provides that diplomatic bags shall not be opened or detained. My right hon. Friend would, of course, take the gravest possible view were it to be shown that diplomatic privilege was being abused in order to import into this country weapons for illegal purposes.

Mr. Dalyell: Since the careful nature of the reply indicates that in the opinion of the Government it seems all too probable that diplomatic bags are used for

precisely this purpose, should not protocol give way to screening? Could not requests be made, in the circumstances, for a screening operation for diplomatic bags, in view of the probability, in the light of what has been said, that arms are indeed imported in diplomatic bags?

Mr. Tomlinson: I think that my hon. Friend is reading too much into the reply that I gave when he drew the conclusions that he did. His proposals for screening would not be consistent with the Vienna convention.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Is not the bacillus of defeatism and national self-denigration, which, unlike Lenin, does not even need a railway carriage, much more dangerous than any arms that might be brought into Britain in diplomatic bags?

Passports

Mr. Dodsworth: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the arrangements which exist for the issue of passports through regional offices.

Mr. Luard: Until this year, arrangements for passport issues at regional offices have proved perfectly satisfactory. Present difficulties and delays have arisen entirely from a sudden 40 per cent. increase in overall demand this year, including monthly increases of 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. in one or two offices. Special steps have now been taken to reduce delays by the recruitment of extra staff, the transfer of work between offices, weekend working, and other measures.

Mr. Dodsworth: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he accept that it will be regarded by some as showing undue complacency, in view of the fact that the increased number of applications was known, in some cases, from January this year? There was an increase of over 50 per cent., for example, in the Peterborough office. Secondly, the delay of seven days in opening the applications is really quite unacceptable. That causes distress to a number of people who are caused great anxiety as a result of delays of six or seven weeks.

Mr. Luard: I must disabuse the hon. Member. There is certainly no complacency on this matter. Over several weeks I personally and others have been very much concerned to try to improve the


situation. I announced some of the measures that have been taken. I very much regret the delay, but it was not possible to forecast, to the extent that the hon. Member seems to suggest, the increases in demand that have taken place.
Regarding the opening of letters, I am glad to say that the situation is very much better than it was when I gave the hon. Member a written reply a few days ago. The situation now is that in all the offices except two, letters are opened on the day of arrival.
I know that many hon. Members share a justified concern on this matter. I hope that they will be willing to join with me in expressing appreciation to the very overworked staff of the Passport Office, who really have been working extremely hard. They have clone enormous amounts of overtime, including weekend working, with a view to enabling travellers to get off on time.

Mrs. Knight: Will the Minister ask the passport offices to review the practice of cashing a cheque immediately while not, perhaps, issuing the passports for many weeks? Is the Minister aware that if a commercial concern cashed a customer's cheque and failed to deliver the goods rather quickly, the whole weight of the consumer organisations would be brought down on its head?

Mr. Luard: I know that there is concern about this point, but in fact it is inevitable that cheques are cashed almost immediately.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Why?

Mr. Luard: Because of the difficulties of security in maintaining large amounts of cash in the passport offices—[HON. MEMBERS: "Cheques."]—without adequate protection. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) says, I would say that the great majority of commercial firms pursue a similar practice.

Mr. Bryan Davies: As the problem obviously stems from increased demand for passports on the part of British people, is this due to our rotten weather or to the success of British Government policies in increasing the prosperity of our people in recent months?

Mr. Luard: I would guess that the reason is a combination of those factors. People have more money in their pockets at present. That has to be taken into account, together with the fact that there are reduced air fares to a number of countries.

USSR (Dissidents' Trials)

Mr. Warren: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has had to the representations made to the Government of the USSR about the recent trials of Soviet supporters of the Helsinki agreement.

Mr. Luard: The Soviet authorities have not made any response to the British Government on this subject.

Mr. Warren: In view of that reply, by which I am not surprised, will not the Foreign Secretary call in the Soviet Ambassador and reaffirm the very strong feelings of the British people about these shameful trials in Russia? Also, will he be prepared to take actions in the form of trade sanctions against the Russian Government so that they understand how strongly we feel?

Mr. Luard: At a recent meeting with Mr. Gromyko, my right hon. Friend took the opportunity to express the very strong feelings that are held in this country about violations of human rights in the Soviet Union. In addition to that, as I think the House knows, a number of steps have been taken since the trials of Mr. Shcharansky and Mr. Ginzburg—the cutting off of a number of visits, the cancellation of a visit by a helicopter team to the Soviet Union, the postponement of a visit of officers to the Gagarin Academy in the Soviet Union, and a number of very strong statements by my right hon. Friend and by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that 178 Labour Back-Benchers signed a letter to the Soviet Ambassador regarding Shcharansky and Ginzburg? Is he also aware that the national executive committee of the Labour Party has also made its position absolutely clear? However, would not my hon. Friend agree with me that in this matter we must keep a very clear balance, and that some people are trying to use the situation to go overboard and so make relationships with the


Soviet Union difficult and lead us into a cold war atmosphere? Does my hon. Friend agree that, while we must fight for human rights in the Soviet Union and elsewhere, we do not at the same time have to get into a cold war situation?

Mr. Luard: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. I welcome the fact that 178 Labour Members of this House signed that letter and took steps to deliver it personally to the Soviet Ambassador. I hope that the Soviet Government have taken careful notice of it. But I agree that it is important that while we should make no secret of our very strong feelings on the subject, we should not take steps that are likely, over the long term, to damage our relations, so that, for example, negotiations over disarmament and other matters are affected, and, above all, we should not cut off the contacts that it has always been our policy to intensify.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

1978 Programme

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the programme formulated for the second half of 1978 by the German President of the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Judd: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Dykes: Can the hon. Gentleman say a little more? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had a meeting with the Council of Finance Ministers a few days ago. Does the Minister regard that as a satisfactory beginning for a more positive effort on the part of the Government to get the monetary fusion plan really under way?

Mr. Judd: The position is that the Finance Ministers were asked to get on with the job. There is a lot of work to be done before further consideration takes place, and that work is now well under way.

Mr. Gould: Will my hon. Friend explain to his EEC colleagues that the test of the Bremen currency proposals is whether they are workable and helpful to our economic prospects and those of Europe and not whether they accord with some narrow theology of European unity? Will

my hon. Friend throw his weight against any such Pavlovian response and ensure that we take a severely practical approach to these questions?

Mr. Judd: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, the way in which these proposals will be judged by people throughout the Community—and, indeed, in history—is not in terms of their theoretical economic virtues but on whether, as my hon. Friend has said, they help the ordinary people in the Community.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: As we are within days of the Davignon steel plan, will the Minister convey to the President of the Council our considerable concern that West Germany is acting as a back door to the excess of imports of steel, against the rules of the Community, from Poland, Czechoslovakia and Romania? Is he aware that many of these steels are special steels, with the result that we cannot compete in the United Kingdom with the prices and that many of our steel plants are working at less than capacity? Will he deal with this problem when he next meets the President?

Mr. Judd: I am glad to be able to reassure the hon. Lady that I dealt with this question yesterday in the Council of Ministers. There are two distinct problems. First, there is a general problem of indirect imports via other Community members from Eastern Europe. On that point, I sought and secured from the Commissioner an undertaking that something would be done in the next two weeks with a view to intervention, if necessary, by the Commission in August. Secondly, on the very difficult and complex issue of special steels—a problem which has wrought havoc in places like Sheffield already—I put as strongly as I could the fact that we want to see results. Indeed, I got an undertaking from the Commission that. it would take up the matter as a matter of urgency.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes will take place in the common agricultural policy as a result of the Bremen meeting.

Mr. Judd: The common agricultural policy was strongly criticised at Bremen


because of its wasteful use of resources. The Commission was asked to report to the next European Council in December with proposals for remedial action. We are looking for decisions which will reduce costs in 1980 and subsequent years.

Mr. Mills: Would not the Minister agree that while a common agricultural policy—a policy for Common Market agriculture—sbould continue, it is the internal arrangements that are wrong and that, if we are to have any monetary adjustments or harmonisation in future, the condition of making that move must be that there are these internal changes in the CAP? Will the Government move towards that policy in their last few months of office?

Mr. Judd: When the Government resume office after the General Election, whenever that may be, we shall continue to have at the top of our priority list the fundamental reform of the CAP. As far as we are concerned, the best structural policy for the CAP is a firm price policy. What we want to do is to eliminate unnecessary structural surpluses, thereby getting a better equilibrium between supply and demand and looking to the interests of consumers throughout the Community.

Mr. Spearing: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, irrespective of their other effects, any results of the Bremen proposals to realign currencies or to prevent their disturbance could only strengthen the CAP? Therefore, would not such a result be against the policy of both sides of this House of reforming the CAP?

Mr. Judd: My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have made it plain that in our approach to any monetary policies which may now be discussed we are determined to see two other priorities fulfilled. One is a real commitment in the Community—there is genuine movement in this direction now—to fundamental reform of the CAP on the lines that I have indicated. The second is generally greater economic convergence within the Community, because, if the disparities and injustices which at present exist within the Community continue or become aggravated, any mone-

tary reform or reorganisation would knock us into disadvantage.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does not the Minister agree that a firm price policy alone is not sufficient to reform the CAP but that there must be greater emphasis on the guidance and structural section? Unless that is done, it will be hopeless to try to stay firm on the firm prices policy alone. Will the hon. Gentleman point out to his German colleague that it is in Germany that the vast amount of the surpluses which are worrying the Community—the milk sector in particular—are being accumulated?

Mr. Judd: The hon. Gentleman, with his experience, has touched on several vital points. One of the things that cannot be emphasised too often is that, whatever our own level of economic activity in comparison with those of other members of the Community, we are the second largest net contributors to the Community. Therefore, we have a right to speak out on the abuse of funds, as we see it, going towards building up unnecessary and wasteful surpluses. But I repeat that in our view the best structural policy is a firm price policy within the CAP.

Mr. Weetch: Will my hon. Friend put on record whether it is the Government's view that, as far as the overall budget of the Community is concerned, we intend to press that the proportion of money used for agricultural support be reduced?

Mr. Judd: The position is clear. With over 70 per cent. of the Community budget now going into a CAP that is manifestly not an acceptable policy, the credibility of the Community and its budget is under severe test. We believe that if the credibility of the Community, and of its budget as a central part of its life, is to be restored, that trend has to be significantly reversed.

European Parliament

Mr. Nelson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans next to visit the European Parliament.

Mr. Tomlinson: My right hon. Friend has, at present, no plans to visit the European Assembly.

Mr. Nelson: Will the Foreign Secretary consider making an early visit to the European Parliament, possibly at its September sitting, in order to reassure it that the British Government give full support to the Franco-German proposals for monetary integration? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that such a stabilisation programme must inevitably fail unless it is regarded as a first step to a full common currency and monetary union in Europe?

Mr. Tomlinson: I am not sure that my right hon. Friend would find that the most productive use of his time in September, but I am sure that he will look with interest at the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does my hon. Friend agree that, unless his right hon. Friend wants to be bored, he might as well save a lot of taxpayers' money by staying at home in Britain?

Mr. Tomlinson: No. I am sure that my right hon. Friend, when he last visited the Assembly during our Presidency, found it a most enjoyable occasion and was most impressed by the contributions of the representatives of the United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. Biffen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if his right hon. Friend went to the Assembly in the terms indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), it would represent an abject surrender on the part of the British Government which would not be tolerated by this House of Commons?

Mr. Tomlinson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be more inclined to that point of view. That is one of the reasons why I do not think that he would find a visit in September productive.

Mr. Molloy: Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend, if he should visit the European Parliament or the European Assembly or whatever it is called, to take up the issue of the mountains of foodstuffs which are being stored in Europe, to no one's advantage? It is now costing many millions of pounds a year to keep them out of circulation. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is one of the most monumental scandals perpetrated by the Common Market since its inception?

Mr. Tomlinson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not take an opportunity to visit the European Assembly for that purpose, but my hon. Friend can remain assured that that is precisely the point of view which Her Majesty's Government are reflecting in the Council of Ministers, which is the place where that sort of point needs to be made, because that is where the responsibility for decision making lies.

Mr. Hurd: Is the Minister aware that, despite earlier assurances from his colleagues, we have still not seen, let alone approved, the draft regulations governing the first direct elections to the European Parliament to be held in this country? What is the reason for this further hang-up?

Mr. Tomlinson: I am not aware of the details. I shall have to look at them and get in touch with the hon. Gentleman.

Council of Foreign Ministers

Mr. John Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what items he intends to place on the agenda for the next meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers.

Mr. Judd: It is too early to say what items will be discussed at our next meeting in September.
However, at yesterday's meeting, the Presidency reported on the formal opening of the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention on 24th July, and the Council discussed aid to non-associate developing countries. The Council agreed on controls on textile imports from a number of Mediterranean countries and heard reports on the follow-up to the Bremen and Bonn summits. The Council also discussed the Community steel and shipbuilding industries, GATT multilateral trade negotiations, relations between the EEC and Yugoslavia, and beef imports from Botswana, and formally decided on the date for the first direct elections to the European Assembly. Foreign Ministers also adopted a statement on Namibia.
I am circulating a fuller account in the Official Report.

Mr. Evans: I thank the Minister for that very helpful and full reply. Will he ask the Foreign Secretary to place on the


agenda for the next meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers the question of the operation of the veto by member States, and make it absolutely clear to his European colleagues that Her Majesty's Government are determined to maintain the right to veto any proposals, on fisheries or anything else, that we feel are not in our national interests?

Mr. Judd: My hon. Friend has no doubt noticed that in the context of discussions about enlargement there have been some suggestions that voting procedures in the Council of Ministers might be changed. We have made it very clear that we are not in favour of any changes of that sort, precisely for the kind of reason that my hon. Friend emphasised effectively in his question.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In view of the welcome decision of the United States Senate to end the embargo on the sale of arms to Turkey, will the Minister recommend three steps to his EEC colleagues—first, an international rescue operation for the Turkish economy, secondly, some streamlining of the very large Turkish forces, and, thirdly, concessions on Turkey's part with a view to reaching a settlement in Cyprus?

Mr. Judd: With the greatest respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman is slightly confused, because some members of the EEC are not members of the NATO Alliance; therefore it would not be appropriate to discuss with them the kinds of military considerations that he mentioned in his question.
We realise that as enlargement takes place and Greece comes into the Community, there will be a very real issue concerning our relations, as a Community, with Turkey. We are determined to give priority to these in the economic sphere and, very importantly, in the political sphere.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that not everybody will agree with the tone of the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths)? Is he further aware that many people feel that a European country which uses NATO arms for invading an independent Commonwealth country near to it should be the subject of some form of sanctions? We all want the economy of Turkey to be strong, but

is my hon. Friend aware that no one on the Labour Benches would condone the sort of lifting of sanctions that is taking place in the United States?

Mr. Judd: Whatever may or may not have happened in the past, I am sure that my hon. Friend, with his very special knowledge of Cyprus, would agree that that island has had a tortuous history. Whatever may or may not have happened in the past, the southern flank of NATO is vital to the integrity of the Alliance as a whole. I believe that it is in that context that we have to look at what was decided yesterday in the United States Senate.

Mr. Emery: Turning to another serious subject, will the Minister ensure, either at the next meeting or arising from his last meeting, that the Lomé Convention is considered further in relation to the major concern of ex-British colonial countries that the amount of aid that is going to ex-French colonial countries is proportionately very much greater, under the convention, than that which is going to ex-British colonial countries? Does he agree that that ought to be looked at most seriously?

Mr. Judd: That very point arose at the discussions this week. We are glad that the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention got off to a good start, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it very plain yesterday that we believe, in the spirit of the Bonn summit—where specific undertakings about responsibilities to the third world were given—that it is very important to recognise that the poorest countries in the world include many which are non-associate States and have the biggest populations. The population of India is very much bigger than that of all the associate States put together. From this standpoint we favour a greater contribution by the Community to the non-associate States, rather than simply concentrating on the associate States.

Following is the information:
The Council took the formal decision fixing the 7th to 10th June 1979 as the date for the first direct elections to the European Assembly.
The Presidency reported to the Council on the way follow-up work to the conclusions reached at the European Council in Bremen had been allocated among the responsible Community organs.


The Presidency and the Commission reported on the outcome of the Bonn Summit; and satisfaction was expressed with the results.
The Council agreed procedural arrangements for further discussion of problems affecting the Community steel industry. Progress will be reviewed in October. There will be urgent bilateral discussions between the Commission and member States on difficulties which have arisen in present arrangements for the control of steel imports.
The Council reached provisional agreement, subject to a United Kingdom reserve, on the text of a resolution on the shipbuilding industry.
The Council took note of a progress report from the Commission on the GATT multilateral trade negotiations, and discussed points to be borne in mind in the next stages of the negotiations.
The Presidency reported briefly on the outcome of the formal opening of the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention, which took place in Brussels on 24th July.
The Council emphasised the importance which it attaches to reaching a new agreement with Yugoslavia. It was agreed that further proposals from the Commission would be considered after the summer break.
Having received satisfactory assurances from the Commission that it would take action to ensure that the agreed ceilings on low cost textile imports would be strictly enforced and that new restraints will be imposed promptly when the need arises, the Secretary of State for Trade accepted the arrangements negotiated with Portugal, Greece and Spain.
Under other business, the United Kingdom welcomed the agreement reached in the Agriculture Council, which will allow us to resume importing beef from the southern area of Botswana, and urged that imports should be permitted soon from other areas which are free of foot and mouth disease.
In the margin of the meeting there was a discussion of a number of matters arising in political co-operation.
The nine Foreign Ministers issued a declaration on Namibia noting that the way is now open to an early internationally acceptable solution and declaring their readiness to respond to a request to help support the economic wellbeing of an independent Namibia.
My right hon. Friend raised the question of the code of conduct for companies with interests in South Africa. He emphasised the importance of instituting as soon as possible national arrangements to ensure compliance with the code and full reporting by companies comparable to those set out in the White Paper, Cmnd. 7233, and its annexes.

Harmonisation

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the purpose of harmonisation in the European Community.

Mr. Judd: The purpose of harmonisation is to facilitate intra-Community trade

by removing technical barriers and by establishing common laws to regulate some aspects of commercial activity.

Mr. Jessel: Why cannot the European Community concentrate on its basic aims of promoting peace and prosperity and stop wasting the time of member countries with useless proposals to harmonise the laws relating to jam, honey, jelly, chestnut purée, correspondence courses, the size of eggs, the length of tape measures, hot-water meters, and the charges for testing gas meters?

Mr. Judd: I am not sure that everyone would be against harmonisation of honey. Concerning the general principle, however, I must say that the view of the Government is that we must resist in the Community any temptation on the part of the Commission or anybody else to achieve harmonisation for harmonisation's sake. We are in favour of harmonisation only where this makes a qualitative improvement to life within the Community. Under the unanimity rule, it is necessary to have the support of all member States for projects for harmonisation; therefore we are in a position to block any proposed harmonisation which we think is nonsense.

Mr. Jay: Is the Minister aware that the proposed EEC lawnmowers make less noise but do not cut the grass?

Mr. Judd: I will pass that information to my wife.

President of the European Commission

Mr. Hoyle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to meet the President of the EEC Commission.

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects next to meet the President of the European Commission.

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will meet next Commissioner Jenkins.

Mr. Crawford: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet the President of the EEC.

Mr. Judd: My right hon. Friend expects to see him on 19th September.

Mr. Hoyle: Will my hon. Friend ensure that it is communicated to our right hon. Friend that it is important that textiles should be discussed when he meets the President? There is a great deal of concern about the working of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement, particularly in relation to imports from the Mediterranean associates, who are disrupting the market by dumping. Is it not time that we told the Commission to take action on this question?

Mr. Judd: I recognise the strength of feeling on this score. It is because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade also feels strongly that he has battled so hard within the Council to get tighter control of policy on this front. Having battled hard, he received yesterday the reassurances that he had sought, and was therefore able to give his consent to the agreed policy. But the Community must he effective in the implementation of what is agreed at Council meetings.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call first those hon. Members whose Questions are being answered. Sir Anthony Meyer.

Sir A. Meyer: Since the Government correctly maintain that Britain's problems, and particularly our unemployment problem, can be solved only by international agreement, does it really make sene to pretend that agreement within the EEC can be reached only on British terms, as the Treasury evidently contends, in terms of the monetary agreement?

Mr. Judd: What has become very clear in recent years is that while the Community working together can make a contribution to growth and sound international economic management—which is the only way in which we can overcome the serious problem of unemployment which affects all our countries—this cannot be solved exclusively within a Community context. That is why we feel that we must pursue policies that will be effective, such as those at the Bonn summit, which brought together a wider group of industrialised nations. I believe that progress was made in that direction at the recent Bonn summit.

Mr. Marten: Will the Minister tell Mr. Jenkins that this country will not be sucked in to his Bremen monetary arrangement purely by high-sounding cliches, the sort of thing which sucked this country into the Common Market in the first place? Can we have an assurance that the Government will approach this matter in a pragmatic and practical way?

Mr Judd: I am not sure whether the hon Gentleman was with us earlier when I dealt with questions on this front. I can give him an undertaking that the Government's approach is highly pragmatic and practical. We shall go along only with those arrangements which, apart from their high-falutin' theory, can be demonstrated to he in people's interests. In this context we look for reform on the CAP and for greater economic and social convergence as the other side of the coin in the overall policies of the Community.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Brussels spokesman confirm that while it may be dangerous to harmonise jam, jelly and crumpet, as suggested by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), it is more sinister to accept the harmonisation plan evinced by the Franco-German proposal in relation to our currency? Does he accept that that will mean the industrial domination by the West Germans of our economy to a growing extent and ensure that the common agricultural policy, which assists France, will remain unchanged for ever?

Mr. Judd: I recognise and, indeed, respect the strength of feeling of my hon. Friend on this matter, but I emphasise to him that it is a far cry from a greater degree of monetary stability to a common currency, and at this juncture there is no question of our becoming committed to any concept of a common currency.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister aware that his earlier reply on the question of majority voting will have reassured many hon. Members who watched the ominous developments at the Council of Agriculture Ministers this week? Would it not be helpful if, in future, when he makes a statement of forthcoming business at Council meetings, he made quite clear those matters in respect of which we


would insist on a unanimous decision as opposed to a majority decision?

Mr. Judd: I shall certainly have a look at that proposition, but I believe that wherever contentious issues arise—issues which have been referred to the House by the Scrutiny Committee for debate—it is absolutely essential that we as a Government take into account the views of right hon. and hon. Members before finalising our position.

Mr. Hurd: Will the Minister remind Mr. Jenkins that in December 1976 Mr. Gundelach and the previous Commission at one go scrapped 35 draft directives, on the ground that they were unlikely to be approved? Would not it be a great relief to us all if there were now a similar bonfire?

Mr. Judd: That may or may not be a good suggestion. However, I believe that the hon. Gentleman and I would agree that it would be much better if the Commission were to concentrate its attention, priority and resources on things that are really of practical benefit rather than getting into the predicament of expending time and energy on ideas which it is clear will be rejected by the body politic.

BROADCASTING

3.33 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about broadcasting.
The White Paper on broadcasting, published today, sets out the Government's proposals for the future constitution, structure and organisation of broadcasting in the United Kingdom. It has been prepared in the light of the report of the committee on the "Future of Broadcasting" under the chairmanship of Lord Annan, and of the many comments received on the committee's recommendations.
I first pay tribute to the performance of the British Broadcasting Corporation, the Independent Broadcasting Authority and the independent television and radio companies. The Government's proposals are designed to ensure that the quality and range of broadcasting services are maintained and, wherever possible, improved. We also want to ensure that

our broadcasting system will be able to respond to the technological developments which will take place over the next decade or so.
Our principal conclusion is that our broadcasting services should continue to be provided as public services and the responsibility of public authorities. But our proposals are also designed to encourage diversity in the range and variety of material available to the public and to enhance the accountability of the broadcasting authorities.
The BBC will continue to be responsible for all the broadcasting services it now provides, but changes will be made in its internal structure to enable the board of governors to concentrate on its supervisory role as trustees of the public interest. In particular, three new service management boards, responsible to the board of governors, will be set up to take responsibility for supervising the programme strategy and management of each of the BBC's main services—television, radio and the external services. Half of the members of each board will be independent persons, appointed by the Home Secretary from outside the BBC's staff—persons who are qualified to make a positive and distinctive contribution to the work of the boards. The changes will also encourage diversity among the BBC's various services as regards programme-making and the approach to news and current affairs.
Independent television and radio will continue to be provided by companies under contract to the IBA. The IBA will also supervise other local broadcasting services, such as cable and pilot schemes of pay-television.
A unique opportunity will be missed if the capacity to provide a new television service on the fourth television channel is not used to widen the choice available to viewers. An Open Broadcasting Authority will be established to supervise the new service on this channel. The OBA will not itself make programmes but will act as a publisher, free to commission programmes from any source. The independent television companies will be regular suppliers of programmes and, particularly in the early years, the source of a significant part of the output of the fourth channel. The OBA will also be able to commission or buy programmes from the BBC and independent producers. The


fourth television channel will be engineered by the IBA, which will also be responsible for transmitting the fourth channel service. The OBA will, therefore, need only a relatively small organisation to carry out its functions.
The OBA will have a special obligation to seek a variety of material, including programmes for tastes and interests which cannot be covered on the present services. It will include educational programmes and also be able to develop its own news service in due course. As regards programme standards, the OBA will be bound by the same obligations as the BBC and the IBA, with one exception. Although it must ensure impartiality—that is, treat controversial matters fairly—it will be relieved of the duty to preserve a proper balance of programmes and wide range of subject matter on the service as a whole, because to do so would be inconsistent with its primary duty of promoting diversity.
The Government accept that a service of this kind is bound to need a measure of Government assistance, particularly in the early years. But the Government will expect the new authority to look to advertising of various kinds—spot-advertising, block advertising and sponsorship—to provide an important and increasing source of finance for its operations.
Local radio will be further developed. The existing services of the BBC and the IBA have proved deservedly popular, and both authorities will be permitted to expand them. The Government are not persuaded that there is need for a new authority to supervise local radio, such as the Annan committee recommended. The ultimate intention will be for as many areas of the country as possible to have two local radio services. A working party is to be set up at once to plan the immediate and long-term development of local radio.
The Government have been mindful of their acceptance of the commitment in principle to the provision of more television programmes in the Welsh language. The Government propose, therefore, that in Wales the fourth television channel should accommodate an expanded Welsh language programme service, which it is hoped to start in the autumn of 1982. The detailed arrangements are discussed in the Home Office working party report, which I am also

publishing today. The supervision of the service will be shared by the three broadcasting authorities—OBA, BBC and IBA—through their representation on a new Welsh Language Television Council.
In future, it is proposed that the responsibility for our broadcasting services will therefore rest with three authorities —the BBC, the IBA and the OBA. Their independence must be preserved. But they must also be fully accountable to the public. To this end, they will be required to hold public hearings from time to time in different parts of the country to ascertain the views of the public on their respective services. Public hearings will also be an integral part of the IBA's future procedures for awarding franchises.
In addition, an independent Broadcasting Complaints Commission will be set up to consider complaints of misrepresentation, or of unjust or unfair treatment, or of invasion of privacy in programmes broadcast by any of the authorities. The Commission will also be able to comment on other complaints about any failure by the broadcasting authorities to observe acceptable standards, for example, in relation to the portrayal of violence or as regards due impartiality.
There is considerable public concern about the portrayal of violence on television. The Government believe that the only safe course at present is for the broadcasting authorities to assume undesirable effects from the portrayal of violence. The authorities should review their present codes and guidance and monitor the amount of violence in their programmes.
The White Paper deals with a great many other detailed points, but these are the main proposals. Discussions with the broadcasting organisations about the proposals will take place in the near future. The Government will also wish to consider the views of any other individuals and organisations who may wish to comment on the proposals.
Legislation will be introduced as soon as possible to give effect to these proposals, and a new Royal charter will be sought for the BBC. Above all, the Government believe that these proposals will provide a structure for the next decade which, in the public interest, will accommodate technological change and


encourage all that is best in our present system.

Mr. Whitelaw: Is the Home Secretary aware that there are several proposals in his long-awaited White Paper with which we agree? For example, we agree with the arrangements for local radio and the rejection of a new authority there. We also accept the Government's views on the need to maintain standards, particularly in relation to the portrayal of violence on television.
Will the Secretary of State appreciate that there is one recommendation with which we entirely disagree and another about which we have grave misgivings? On the allocation of the fourth channel, we agree with the basic aim both of the Annan committee and the Government that a fourth channel should provide different kinds of programmes from those on the existing channels. But just as I rejected the Annan concept of the OBA in the debates on 23rd May last year, so now we dissent from the Government's proposal on financial grounds. We believe that the plan as outlined would place a totally unnecessary burden on the taxpayers through a deliberate increase in public expenditure with a new bureaucracy and a direct financial contribution from the Government.
We remain of the view that the alternative of the fourth channel being administered by the IBA, with a separate programme planning board on which the main ITV companies would not have a majority, could meet the Government's objectives and our own, without extra cost to the taxpayers. It would also do so far more quickly and far more effectively. We also believe that such a plan could deal with the special problems of Wales which the Home Secretary has outlined.
Secondly, we are very dubious about the proposal for the restructuring of the BBC. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reassure us on this point. We accept that some of the Annan committee's criticisms of bureaucracy and lack of control in the BBC may have been justified, but surely these could be best solved by the BBC governors and management themselves, as they are already seeking to do. How can it make sense to overcome bureaucracy by increasing it through the proposed special management boards?

Are not these just a prolification of quangos? Does it not threaten the basic independence of the BBC, which is so important in this country and throughout the world, if about half the members of these new bodies are to be appointed by the Home Secretary of the day instead of by Order in Council, as is the position with the governors at present? Is it not very dangerous to increase the bureaucracy and, at the same time, appear to threaten the independence of the BBC?

Mr. Rees: The right hon. Gentleman said that there was concern about bureaucracy in the BBC. He then went on to say that the BBC was doing something about this anyway. If we now seek to do something about it I cannot see why it suddenly becomes bureaucratic. Why is it bureaucratic if a Government do it and non-bureaucratic if the BBC does it? On this point about bureaucracy, I have had one thing in mind throughout consideration of this matter—that I must not make the same mistake as the previous Administration made on local government and on the National Health Service. The Opposition have every reason to be concerned about bureaucracy because they always spawn it, as they did when they were last in power.
The OBA will not be a large organisation. The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants to have an OBA inside the IBA. In that case where does the bureaucracy arise? There will be no bureaucracy. What is required, in my view, is a third authority. There are two authorities in this country at present. With the decline in the number of newspapers and, as some people would say, with the decline in the quality of the newspapers, and with the increase in the different methods of broadcasting in years to come, it is important that we should have more than two authorities providing programmes and news in this country. The main claim for the OBA in this form is that there will be a third authority. I hope that through local broadcasting we shall get even more views, because a country that has only two is losing what it used to have when it had many more newspapers.
In regard to Wales—and I say this as a Welshman [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—there is no point in hon. Members sneering, because the Welsh count. We want


to see that the Welsh channel offers not just something out of the IBA—for example, "Crossroads" in Welsh—but that it promotes and developes on television the culture we have in Wales. We want to see that culture develop in a way that it has not had the chance to do in recent years.

Mr. David Steel: Do the Government intend that there should be a debate on the White Paper before legislation is laid before us? This would be advisable. I am not placing any time on the matter, I just want to establish the principle.
On three matters we certainly support the recommendations of the White Paper. We support the emphasis on increased controls on the portrayal of violence. That is widely regarded as long overdue. Also, the proposals for the Welsh service are commendable, as are the proposals for local radio.
Does the Home Secretary note that I now estimate that the total of ministerial appointments which we shall have in broadcasting alone will be more than 100 if these proposals are implemented? The House is increasingly wary of ministerial statements—from either party in Government—which extend the role of ministerial patronage. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered this matter? Has he estimated the number of quangos embodied in the new White Paper which he is seeking to create?
Does he accept that the three new management boards proposed for the BBC will be bound to add to the bureaucracy—and here I agree with the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw)—a matter which came in for criticism by the Annan committee? Surely such an arrangement will not reduce the amount of bureaucracy. Is there not a danger of extending ministerial patronage to the external services of the BBC when Governments in the past have had difficulty in making it clear to the world that the BBC is independent of Government?
Lastly, in respect of the limited role of the OBA, although I agree that that role is right, could it not be embodied within the IBA? To say that there are only two news channels is to ignore the wide variety of news produced by the regional companies on both sides of the network.

Mr. Rees: Dealing with the last point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, I have personal experience, having heard broadcasting in Yorkshire, of the variety of news services put out, but I do not think that is the point. It is a point of concern to the House as a whole—or it should be a point of concern—that if somebody switches on the radio at a certain time and tunes into a news bulletin and then later switches on yet again and hears the self-same broadcast, it is the same news, although perhaps cut down a little, that that person will hear the whole time. I beg the House to consider the technical developments that will have such an effect on the future of broadcasting. Whatever may be the disagreements about the structure of broadcasting, I feel strongly that we should examine alternative news sources.
Let me seek to deal with the subject of bureaucracy and the point made about external services. We all know that the governors of the BBC exist and that the external services work under them. If people abroad imagine that those services are not under the control of the governors, they are wrong. The alternative to having three parts within the organisation, as it were, is to have no outside interests in the organisation at all. In the two years I have been Home Secretary, my contacts with the BBC and IBA have been minimal. I have not been aware that anybody on the IBA or BBC is the creature of any political party, and that need not happen. The question is whether the three boards are to be composed only of those working in the organisation. I believe that there should be governors on the main governing board.
On the subject of a future debate on broadcasting, that will be an excellent subject for November or December this year. I look forward to that occasion.

Mr. Whitehead: Does my right lion. Friend accept that there is a certain amount of humbug in the fact that the spokesman for the Conservative Party—the party of competition and free enterprise—has objected to a new outlet in broadcasting because it threatens vested interests with which the Conservatives are allied? Will he also accept that the Annan committee is following the principle of regulated diversity, because the more outlets we have the more informed,


educated and entertained a democracy we shall have?
May I put two points of clarification to my right hon. Friend? In regard to the link between the OBA and IBA, is it envisaged that this will mainly relate to advertising matters or that it will also be concerned with scheduling? Is he aware that scheduling could lead to an ITV2 by the backdoor?
Finally, is the local radio working party to take as its first consideration the setting up of genuine small community stations—a move which up to now has not been particularly obvious in local radio?

Mr. Rees: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks and also for the work he put into the Annan committee.
The matter put to me by my hon. Friend about the OBA needs to be discussed. When there is talk of working papers, I always have in mind the fact that we shall need to discuss the technical aspects. I hope to start discussions soon. There will certainly have to be discussion about advertising.
On the problem of scheduling, I would inform the House that given the nature of channel 4, again there will have to be discussion. I have not a closed mind on the matter. There will certainly have to be discussions between the channels. We saw one bad example of scheduling this summer when football was broadcast on both channels. That may be an extreme example, but I emphasise that there must be discussions.
On the subject of local radio, I want to see BBC and IBA extend the number of stations very shortly. We shall soon begin discussions on that matter.
As for satellite stations and the like, I wish to point out that there may be some developments as a result of the report. There are some interesting developments in Wales in this sphere which are being conducted by the BBC.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Does the Home Secretary agree that in view of the calamitous effect of English television on the Welsh language, especially among children and young people, the additional hours of Welsh broadcasting proposed for BBC 2 should start within six months? Should not the 21 hours per week pro-

posed for the fourth channel begin in October 1981 rather than in 1982? Does he not appreciate that there have already been years of delay since the Government accepted this idea in principle?

Mr. Rees: The question of when one can begin transmission is now a matter for talks with the IBA. The transmission arrangements will take time to work out. Talks have already started on this subject. No amount of words can take us away from the reality of the position. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have been considering whether with existing facilities there could be an immediate extension of Welsh language programmes. I think the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) knows that that is the position. It may cause a certain amount of laughter that I spend all my life in England these days, and proudly so, but I believe that the Welsh language is a proud language and should be given a chance, particularly with young people, to flower again in the future.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House can see that a large number of hon. Members wish to be called. I intend to give this matter a good run, but it will help if hon. Members do not advance arguments but ask questions.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a wide welcome on the Labour Benches for the proposal to set up the OBA? However, is he also aware that there will be grave disappointment at the fact that the Government have not thought again about the system of financing the BBC? Does he appreciate that many of us want to do away with this regressive poll tax and replace it with a system involving the financing of the BBC out of general taxation in order to retain the BBC's independence? Would this not have taken care of the anomaly that besets pensioners, an arrangement which has upset very many people, and would it not be a more efficient system of providing funds to finance the BBC's operations?

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend obviously has read the provisions on licensing. There is a long-term problem involving licensing. There is a certain buoyancy in the BBC licence fees which amounts to


60 per cent. in regard to colour television. I suppose that eventually that buoyancy will come to an end. We agree that there is a problem, but we also agree with the Annan committee—and we have discussed this matter with the BBC—that the position cannot be shrugged aside. It has been made clear in other parts of the world that if money is paid direct to a broadcasting authority it is felt, with some justice, that that authority is controlled by the Government of the day. That factor must be considered. In the longer run, ideas on the subject will have to be considered, and we shall certainly examine them. The Government's view is set out in the White Paper.

Mr. Reid: Do we not need better quality broadcasting rather than more broadcasting? Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that before the fourth channel is set up, priority spending will take place in the "white spots"? I refer to remote parts of the country, particularly in Scotland, where people do not have three channels or adequate radio at the present time but nevertheless pay the same fees as everybody else?

Mr. Rees: That is a problem. The development of UHF will end that anomaly. I am well aware of the position, and the hon. Gentleman is quite right to put forward that argument on behalf of his constituents.

Mr. Ashton: Is not the White Paper perpetuating a system in which an old-age pensioner has to pay nearly a week's income to obtain a television licence? Would it not be simpler to put a third of 1 per cent. on VAT and pay the BBC the money—in the same way as we pay the Queen or allocate money to the Civil List, and in the same way as the universities obtain grants, with no interference from Parliament at all?

Mr. Rees: I return to the point that it is strongly felt that direct payments by the Government to broadcasting authorities create problems. That aspect cannot be brushed aside. We have in mind what happens in this respect in other countries. If my hon. Friend is suggesting that one-third of 1 per cent. of value-added tax should automatically go to broadcasting I would point out that whatever arrangement is adopted, a payment by the Treasury, by the nature of the

Treasury's role, or even if the money were channelled through the Home Office, would raise problems. I understand the view advanced by my hon. Friend. I believe that there will come a time when the buoyancy of the revenue will raise problems, and it is a subject to which we should give careful thought.

Mr. Warren: In view of the proliferation of private broadcasting networks for commercial reasons, will the Home Secretary consider the need for the working party on local radio to examine the introduction of citizens' band radio at an early date?

Mr. Rees: That is a different matter on citizens' band radio that is not dealt with here. I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest and I know what is done in other countries. I have talked to the police about it and the problems that arise for them. There is not the abundance of channels that would enable this to be done in the way in which it is done in other countries. It is not of the same ilk as this report, but we have given the Government's view on that matter recently.

Mr. Ifor Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his welcome statement will be studied with great interest in the whole of the Principality? I should like to take this opportunity of thanking him for the courteous way that he has received delegations in connection with this matter.
In view of the important contribution that the fourth television channel can make towards sustaining the Welsh language—indeed, as is recognised in paragraph 66 of the White Paper—will he give urgent attention to programmes in Welsh for young people, because they are vital for the future of the language?

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend has been to see me with delegations about this matter. I have met delegations from all parts of Wales. There is something that we can do in the short run. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are talking about this matter with the companies to see what can be done. We shall continue to do that.

Mr. Aitken: Is it not rather disturbing that the Home Secretary is going to


encourage this new quango of his to abandon the traditional broadcasting principle of maintaining a proper balance? Will he and the Labour Party be quite so happy about this matter if the OBA, in order to demonstrate its improper lack of balance, transmits on its opening night a repeat of "Yesterday's Men"?

Mr. Rees: I have no doubt that it could repeat many other things with which the hon. Gentleman has been involved.

Mr. Skinner: Even my speeches.

Mr. Rees: The hon. Member for Thanes, East (Mr. Aitken) has got it wrong with regard to balance. Impartiality is one thing. But, by the nature of the fourth channel, the balance argument is no longer valid.
If the hon. Gentleman believes that there is anything wrong with the people who are now appointed to the BBC and to the IBA and that in some way they do not do their jobs properly, I hope that he and all those who are talking about quangos will let me know. I believe that the governors of the BBC and those on the board of the IBA have done an excellent job. I regret that there should be sneers at these people, who do their jobs for a very low sum of money.

Mr. English: Good luck to Wales. But while we are on about the regions, does the Home Secretary have any views on the one—and only one—region of England that has no television service of its own?
On the question of patronage, instead of extending the power of the Executive, with a suitably organised electoral system could not the Members of this House elect the independent members to these boards?

Mr. Rees: That last point on how it should be done is interesting. Again, if my hon. Friend has any views about the lack of quality of those who are already on the boards and do good jobs for a remarkably low sum of money, perhaps he will let me know
The new franchises will be not for me, but, certainly with regard to channel 2, for the IBA.

Mr. Rathbone: Does the Home Secretary accept that many people share my right hon. Friend's concern about Government funding of the fourth channel? Many will also be concerned about the door which is ajar towards sponsorship within the fourth channel, which can adversely affect programme content and quality, as is readily visible in the United States. In addition, does he accept that many people are concerned about the degree of funding already available to Independent Television News and therefore do not accept the need for additional news services until the funding for the present news service is increased so that it can do an ever better job than it is doing now?
With regard to local radio, many people do not accept the Home Secretary's contention that there are too few frequencies for real community radio. Therefore, will he investigate the precision with which the Home Office over and over again contends that there is a shortage of frequencies for local radio and for citizens' bands?

Mr. Rees: I have not put forward any argument about the lack of frequencies for local radio. The point is that for the short distance that they transmit the problem does not arise. I believe that we can extend local radio to all parts of the country.
Sponsorship for the fourth channel, which arose out of Annan, is one of the things that we put in the White Paper. There are some excellent examples of sponsorship in the United States. We should need to look at that matter carefully. That is the funuction of the White Paper. Let us see what gets into the Bill.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I congratulate the Home Secretary once again on confirming the various leaks that have been given on this White Paper, the official secrets White Paper, the pay White Paper and every other White Paper. Instead of handing this White Paper to the press and a few selected individuals, why could he not give it to Members of Parliament generally and thus prevent just two going on the radio this morning and giving full details of it?
On the question of quangos, my right hon. Friend did not explain the matter in detail. I think that his point was that we could have an open competition so that


those who are able and capable may apply and we can have a vetting system by a Select Committee to stop this obvious patronage of ex-Members of Parliament and those in another place sharing out the spoils on the basis of fair shares for all, provided that it is Lady Howe pairing with Lady Lockwood. I think that most hon. Members would like to stop that system.

Mr. Rees: I come back to the last point about the IBA and the BBC. My hon. Friend has views about this matter in general. However, if he looks at the people who have been appointed, he will find that they were not appointed in that way. He considers that appointments can better be made in another way. That is a matter for the Government as a whole. I repeat, those appointed to the BBC and the IBA get very little money and they do an excellent job. They are in no sense the poodles of any political party.
With regard to anyone who spoke on the radio this morning, I issued the White Paper at 2.30 this afternoon. I did not issue copies before that, except to a group of people involved in the industry.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Lewis: Then find out where they got them from.

Mr. Rees: All I am saying is that it could not possibly have been at 9 o'clock. The two Members of Parliament concerned must have got copies in other ways.

Mr. Spence: is the Home Secretary aware that the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries of which I am a member, today tabled its report on the IBA? Is he further aware that the work of that Committee was considerably hampered, to say the least, by the absence of any definite date by which the White Paper was supposed to be published and that it could not get any information on the date of publication? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to read the Select Committtee's report? I also ask the House to read that report in conjunction with this White Paper.

Mr. Rees: Of course I shall read that report. Because of the nature of the discussions that were taking place, I did not decide the date of publication until

last week. If I had known the date, if I had known when it would come to fruition, I should have let the Select Committee know, and I am sure that the Select Committee would have let me know when it was going to publish its report.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while the fears of the BBC are understandable, they are not valid? Is he further aware that successive Governments have demonstrated that they are perfectly capable of paying the piper without attempting to call the tune, notably in relation to the Arts Council and several other bodies which are financed by Government funds but which are not controlled by them? Therefore, does my right hon. Friend agree that the objections of the BBC, although understandable, are not valid?
Finally, I ask my right hon. Friend to comment on one further point. Is not the threat to the broadcasting authorities greater from the possibility of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission? Will he confirm that that body will have no censorship powers over the existing authorities?

Mr. Rees: On the first point, about calling the tune, there is a difference of opinion. The Broadcasting Complaints Commission will not be a censorship organisation. But it is right that there should be a vehicle through which complaints about the BBC, the IBA and the OBA can be channelled.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The White Paper talks about the OBA's buying Welsh language programmes from the ITV contractor in Wales. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the financing of fourth channel Welsh programmes?

Mr. Rees: Discussions about the Welsh fourth channel have been going on for some time, since Siberry and Crawford. What is envisaged is that the three companies will provide programmes and that there will be a Welsh television council for co-ordinating arrangements. The financing, in the short run or in the long term, will be a matter for the Council to work out with the three organizations. There may indeed be a need for some Government money, certainly in the short run, but the best way in which this can be dealt with is a matter for discussion.


I know that the company involved is prepared to play a part.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Whilst I welcome the expansion of local radio on the ground that two years late is better than never, does my right hon. Friend accept that when it comes to the fourth channel the best way to provide choice to the viewer is through complementary programming, with the alternation of programmes on two channels, and that this is rendered more difficult by the creation of a third competing body? Will my right hon. Friend also accept that, because the White Paper relegates that third competing body to a minority audience, as a kind of fretwork network, there is likely to be a considerable burden on public funds for the financing of this operation? What studies have been done on the advertising revenue that is likely to be attracted to a channel that is likely to obtain less than 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. of the total audience? How does my right hon. Friend justify providing out of public money the kind of financial support that will be necessary for a minority intellectual ghetto?

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend talks about 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. of the total audience. Perhaps he would give me the papers he has worked out which enable him to come to that figure. My hon Friend also talks about the fretwork people and so on. We are not talking about minorities in that sense. There are large groups, which may add up to over I million people, whose special interests, given the nature of the present system, do not receive a wide showing on the BBC and IBA. So we are not talking about minorities of small groups. Minorities can be very large in this country. I find that with two channels we get the same all the time, because they are working to the mass audience. We should give the facilities for something better to be done.

Mr. Fell: What is the Home Secretary saying that the British people will get as new programmes from the Open Broadcasting Authority, set up entirely by him, which will have no requirement to keep a proper balance in terms of range, variety or subject matter, and which it seems will have no limits on its functions? Is it to be entirely concerned with the fourth channel or may it stray to tell other chan-

nels how they may operate? Everything is unknown. We should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman what on earth he means.

Mr. Rees: If the hon. Gentleman had read the report even quickly he would not have thought that the OBA would stray into other channels. I have just explained that with regard to minority views, which means those of the non-mass audience—

Mr. Skinner: Like Common Marketeers.

Mr. Rees: Maybe there should be a programme for anti-Marketeers as well.
There are a large number of people who do not want to watch the mass programmes. We are trying to cater for them with the aid of this proposal.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he need not worry too much about the programme content of the OBA, because there will be a multiplicity of people trying to get original material on to such a channel? But will he look very carefully at the whole question of the funding of local radio? Many of us would like to see the BBC extend its local radio services much wider, because it is doing a marvellous job. But it cannot do it without cash. Will my right hon. Friend please look at the way in which such services are funded and see whether he can ensure that the BBC receives enough money to provide the services? It is doing the job very well, but only on a shoe-string.

Mr. Rees: We are about to discuss with the IBA and the BBC the immediate extension of local broadcasting. There are some interesting ideas which can be carried out with transmission of a much lower strength than normal programmes. I think that there will be interesting developments here.

Mr. Emery: Will the Home Secretary remind himself of what he has written in his second major paragraph:
our broadcasting services should continue to be provided as public services"?
There are people in Devon, Cornwall and Yorkshire, and particularly Scotland and Wales, who cannot receive the existing public services in radio, in some instances in Radio 4 and in many instances in


Radio 3, and certainly in television in BBC 2. Will the right hon. Gentleman insist that before new money is provided to extend the public service to other people those communities should be provided with the existing services so that they can benefit as compared with the rest of the community?

Mr. Rees: In some instances it is not a question of money.

Mr. Emery: It is.

Mr. Rees: In some instances it is not a question of money for normal transmission. This is where the interesting section on cable radio and television and the developments that will take place comes into the picture. That method may well be a way of extending the service.

Mr. Ward: While there will be a general welcome for my right hon. Friend's announcement about local radio, is he aware that there is continuing apprehension about the delays inherent in his proposals? Can he say whether the committee set up to designate initially new stations will decide within weeks rather than months and whether the first of the new stations will be opened by 1980?

Mr. Rees: The development of local broadcasting was held up while we were waiting for this. It should not take too long for it to be done. For example, in Wales, where the BBC seems not to be too interested in local broadcasting in the true sense of the term but to be interested in community broadcasting, there may be quicker developments. It need not take too long for the extension. Various towns have already been in touch with the BBC asking for developments.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does the Home Secretary accept the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) about the need for automatic buoyant revenue for the BBC? The present licence system is not automatic, in that licence fee increases have to be approved by the House and the Home Secretary.
Having praised the part-time governors of the BBC and talked about their £1,000 a year, why has the right hon.

Gentleman made no proposal to raise that pay, which has not been raised for some time?
Thirdly, and perhaps most important, where did the idea of a service management board come from? It is not referred to in the appendix as coming from Annan. It has not been discussed widely in the public arena. What do the present governors and the chairman of the BBC think about it?

Mr. Rees: They will no doubt give me their views. This is the purpose of the White Paper. When my colleagues and I looked at this matter, we were faced with the fact that on Annan there was a majority in favour of leaving the BBC as it was, as opposed to breaking it up into three separate organisations. I considered the matter and discussed it with my colleagues. We have tried to get inside the organisation the benefits desired by those who wanted to break it up completely.
I understand that the BBC is to discuss the matter, and it might well be doing something of this kind of its own volition. But it sometimes does not require a position paper and large amounts of other paper to have the view that the BBC is monolithic and tends to be bureaucratic. To divide it in this way is a very good idea that should be discussed.

Mr. Carmichael: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the ideas he has put forward about local radio, and particularly the low-power local radio, will be appreciated throughout the country? However, may I, like the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Spence), draw his attention to the fact that the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries laid its report on the Table today, largely agreeing with what I have been able to read of the White Paper on local radio? Does my right hon. Friend accept that his Department certainly knew when the White Paper was likely to come out? Whilst I accept that it is an old-established custom that embargoed copies of White Paper go to the press, would not it be reasonable if a Select Committee discussing the problem had advance copies as well?

Mr. Rees: I was thinking of publishing the White Paper yesterday. The House can see that it was more sensible


to leave it until today. It was not possible to tell members of the Select Committee when it would be published.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: At least two MPs obviously knew.

Mr. Rees: They did not know. They could not possibly have known. It could have been made available this morning. If need be, I should have made it available yesterday, but by then the Select Committee report was printed as well.

Mr. McCrindle: While I welcome the expansion of BBC and IBA local radio stations, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to note that Essex is the most populous county in the country without at present having an independent radio station of either the BBC or the IBA? Does he think that that sort of consideration might lead to Essex being one of the 12 now proposed?

Mr. Rees: Certainly that can be considered. I know that various towns in other parts of the country have been to the BBC and the IBA. I presume that that is true of Essex, too. There is one point that needs to be made. It has to be decided when local radio ceases to be local radio. We are talking about local radio, but there is no doubt that some of the companies have become regional and even larger in their coverage. I am not arguing either way about that point. When we are talking about local radio we ought to be clear what it is that we have in mind.

Mr. Spearing: Referring to the publisher analogy for the fourth channel, may I ask the Home Secretary to tell the House why he has suggested that sponsorship be introduced for the first time? He told the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) that it was contained in Annan. Surely he has more positive reasons than that, since the advantage of the publisher concept is that it separates the source of revenue from the choice of programme, whereas if my right hon. Friend adopts the sponsorship idea he is doing the opposite, as in the case of a publisher with a sponsored book.

Mr. Rees: It was a value judgment whether to insert sponsorship as a form of advertising. We noted that there had been excellent developments of sponsor-

ship in the United States in recent years. I have put the idea in. It can be discussed. We ought to look more closely at what is being done in the United States as opposed to the form of sponsorship which existed there 10 or 15 years ago.

Mr. Gorst: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposals for an OBA quango contain very nearly all of the known ills of broadcasting plus many of the untried ones, particularly sponsorship and a lack of balance in programmes, together with back-door financing by the Government which will undoubtedly lead to Government pressure? Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman say where the BBC will get the necessary funds to finance an extension of local radio?

Mr. Rees: Dealing with the first point, I have to point out that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) wants an OBA inside the IBA—

Mr. Critchley: No he does not.

Mr. Rees: I am glad to hear the second-in-command explaining what the first-in-command has said.

Mr. Whitelaw: Read what I said a year ago.

Mr. Rees: What the Opposition are saying is that the organisation should be run directly by the IBA with existing staff. The point I am making is that if there is to be an organisation which will run this OBA concept inside the IBA it will still need people to run it and organise it. They would have to be taken on in the IBA.

Mr. Fell: Not named by the Home Secretary.

Mr. Rees: As to whether they are named by the Home Secretary, I invite the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), with his great knowledge of industry—in the best sense of the term—to see how the appointments are made now and then to tell me whether any are in the pocket of a political party. I shall be very pleased to know the result.

Mr. Noble: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his answer to the effect that the licence fee can be considered only in the long term is extremely disappointing, particularly to pensioners? Why cannot


he deal with the greatest anomaly of the lot and at least make a start by abolishing television licence fees for pensioners instead of favouring only those in sheltered accommodation?

Mr. Rees: Such a proposal would cost the best part of £90 million—

Mr. Noble: Money well spent.

Mr. Rees: —and the Government believe that it is better to continue to treat old-age pensioners in the way in which we have treated them, with the extra money being paid across the board in the past four years, rather than to do it in the way my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Crouch: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was one of those who looked forward with some enthusiasm to the Open Broadcasting Authority in preference to a second commercial channel? Is he further aware that, having had a cursory look at the White Paper with its suggestions for the financing arrangements, bringing in sponsorship, and the incredible idea of 15 minutes of block advertising, I feel that he is in danger of taking away my enthusiasm and of creating a dog's breakfast of the OBA?

Mr. Rees: The Annan report was based completely on advertising. In some countries, instead of having spot advertising and breaking up a programme, they have a quarter-hour period of advertising, rather like a page of a newspaper. I thought that this might be a better approach. The House can discuss this and act accordingly. In my view the White Paper ought to put the facts before the House for decision before legislation is introduced.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Speaking as a member of a minority group in the United Kingdom which is anxious to preserve the cohesion of the United Kingdom, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that his statement, in so far as it relates to the problems of the Welsh language, will be received with some anxiety in Wales, by Welsh-speaking and non-Welsh-speaking Welshmen? Is he further aware that the autumn of 1982 will be seen to be so far away and the problem to be so finely balanced that people will believe that the destiny of the language might well be decided in the

interregnum? What are the practical problems, given the political will, which prevent the establishment of a fourth channel service in Wales within 12 months?

Mr. Rees: There is the practical problem of not having the transmitters. The IBA is talking about this point now. It needs the transmitters. It is a technical problem. There cannot be programmes without transmitters. It is not a question of political will; it is a practical problem.

Mr. Blaker: The Home Secretary seems to be proposing the setting-up of a great many new quangos. Has he not forgotten one? Will there not have to be a committee to advise him about the flood of applications which he will no doubt receive from retired Labour politicians, and those about to be retired, asking to serve on the quangos?

Mr. Rees: With that sort of humour the hon. Gentleman could be on an ITV 2 comedy programme.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that notwithstanding paragraph 75 in the White Paper concerning public hearings many ordinary people still do not know how to make an approach to the BBC or ITA other than by way of the telephone, which sometimes leads to telephone lines being overloaded?
Is he aware that what is required is an explanation to ordinary people and voluntary organisations setting out how they can make approaches to these authorities, which often seem remote? This explanation should be in relation to approaches other than by way of the recommendation concerning public hearings set out in paragraph 75. Is he aware that by itself paragraph 75 is not enough?

Mr. Rees: The public hearings recommendation is one aspect. There is a complaints procedure set out in the White Paper. If my hon. Friend has anything else in mind with regard to the curent situation, I shall certanly discuss it with him and the chairmen of both bodies.

Mr. Mawby: The right hon. Gentleman has properly paid tribute to the membership of the BBC and the IBA. If what he has said about these people is true—and I believe that it is—why


do we need another body such as the OBA, especially since this would appear to be an open-ended demand upon the taxpayer? Is the right hon. Gentleman able to say whether the further extension of local independent radio is to be put off yet again until some other committee makes a decision?

Mr. Rees: We have held up the extension of local independent radio in the past two years. The working party considering the subject is to discuss with the BBC and the IBA the question of an immediate extension.
Coming to the role of these organisations, the role of the BBC governors is both supervisory and managerial. We think that there ought to be a distancing of those roles. The role of the OBA is supervisory. The role of the OBA would not be an appropriate role for the IBA as it is at the moment because it would commission programmes direct. That is why I thought that the OBA should be a separate organisation.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There have been three-quarters of an hour of questions on this subject, apart from the statement. I propose to call two more hon. Members from each side.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my right hon. Friend realise that his proposals will be generally welcomed, particularly the proposal to give the fourth channel to the OBA? Is he aware that there will be a special welcome in Wales for the proposal to give the channel to Welsh-language programmes? Does he appreciate that this proposal will be well received not only by the 20 per cent. Welsh-speaking part of the population but by the remaining 80 per cent. non-Welsh-speaking members of the population?
Will my right hon. Friend consider again the proposal that has come from some of my hon. Friends to do away with a licence fee for television? We want to maintain the political impartiality of the BBC, and we all recognise the good service that it gives, but there must be a better method of raising finance than taxing a millionaire at the same rate as an old-age pensioner by requiring a licence fee.

Mr. Rees: If my hon. Friend reads the relevant section, he will find that we have stated our views. It is felt that there is a problem about control by the Government of the day. We shall have to take the various issues into account when considering the buoyancy of the revenue. Other problems may arise as regards Wales. The OBA that will be in the rest of the United Kingdom will not be available in Wales. That should be taken on board.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I should have indicated that I will call the Opposition Front Bench spokesman at the end of the questions on this matter.

Mr. Wiggin: The Home Secretary has said that the Welsh count. Is he aware that only 28 per cent. of them count in Welsh and that none of my constituents understands the Welsh language? Therefore, proposals in the White Paper for any extension of Welsh language programmes, especially for children, will be deeply resented on both sides of the Bristol Channel? Is it without the capacity of the Government to put all Welsh language programmes on the fourth channel before four years from now expire?

Mr. Rees: I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the working party document. I accept that there is a problem. I know that people in Weston-super-Mare are not interested in Welsh programmes, and nor should they be. I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the working party document, which is a technical document.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the Home Secretary able to help us on paragraph 62? We are told that the Assembly is to get "buckshee" annual reports from the National Broadcasting Council. We are also told that it would be inappropriate to require them to be laid formally before the Assembly. What is the relationship between the Assembly, on the one hand, and the BBC and broadcasting, on the other? If there is no relationship, may we hear about it?

Mr. Rees: The relationship of broadcasting will be with Parliament and with the Home Secretary. We thought that out of courtesy the Assembly should receive copies of the annual reports, but these


matters will lie with the House and will not be devolved to the Assembly.

Mr. Raison: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered whether in the interests of competition the ITV contribution to the fourth channel might be made by new contractors rather than by the existing companies? Will he take seriously that under the present combination of radio and television some parts of the country, such as Leeds, I suspect, receive a great deal of regional and local coverage whereas other parts, such as Buckinghamshire, receive virtually none?

Mr. Rees: I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's second point to the notice of the companies, especially his argument about local broadcasting. He raises an interesting suggestion about the new independent companies being involved in the fourth channel, in whatever fashion it eventually emerges. It is intended—much thought has been given to this—that there shall be room on the fourth channel for independent producers. It may be that the hon. Gentleman and I are not very far apart.

Mr. Critchley: Those of us who read the New Statesman, and even those of us who do not, know that the real author of the White Paper is the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). The Whitehead torpedo that sank the first draft has landed an unfortunate second draft around the right hon. Gentleman's neck. My right hon. and hon. Friends wish to reinforce the authority of the IBA and the BBC, but we are not in favour of the creation of a third authority, the OBA, for broadcasting and as a final resting place for retired trade union leaders.
I ask the following questions on the OBA, were it ever to see the light of day. What authority will the OBA enjoy over its programme makers? Will it enjoy more or less authority than the other two authorities? Will it inform the viewer, as is now the position, or will it be allowed to persuade, as is threatened? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the skills to make exciting and vivid television are not the same as making fair television? Will the OBA ensure that a fair spread of opinions are heard? What stress is there in the White Paper for the need for accuracy on the part of the new fourth channel?

Mr. Rees: As for the hon. Gentleman's first point, I only advise him not to believe everything that he reads in the New Statesmen or in anything else. There has been a most interesting discussion but the whole subject has sometimes been lionised and individualised. Usually that is believed by those who have never been in Cabinet.
The OBA will have to maintain impartiality. That is contrary to Annan. It should concern itself with impartiality. The authority will have control over that in the same way as other bodies have control. That will have to be written into legislation.

Mr. Rost: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) is not the only hon. Member to be embarrassed by the obvious and deliberate advance leakage of the White Paper to certain hon. Members and to the media. It is embarrassing when hon. Members are approached by the media early in the day and asked to comment on a White Paper that has apparently been released deliberately to the media by the Home Secretary and made available to other hon. Members when it has not yet been made available to certain hon. Members such as myself. Will something be done to cease that practice so that we may have some conformity of procedure? That will ensure that all hon. Members are properly protected. It will ensure that some hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), do not have the privilege of appearing on the media early in the morning to comment on a White Paper that the rest of us have not had the privilege of seeing.

Mr. Rees: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In accordance with the usual practice, the only copies of the White Paper to be made available were for the leaders of the main parties. Copies were not made available for anybody else. Other copies were not made available.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: They were.

Mr. Rees: They were not made available. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) can speak for himself. It is no good the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) shaking his head. I am giving my word that other copies were not made


available. The White Paper was embargoed to the press in the normal fashion.

Mr. Fell: That does not mean a thing.

Mr. Rees: It may not mean a thing but I did what is done normally. I have not made copies available to other Members of Parliament.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. We all appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that you are not responsible for whether the Department, a civil servant or someone else did or did not leak the White Paper officially or unofficially. However, we know that for weeks the press has been able to give almost verbatim reports of what will be in the White Papers on the Official Secrets Act, on pay and on broadcasting.
Whether the White Paper is or is not officially leaked and whether it is or is not the case that some civil servant leaked it and, who knows, received payment for it, we have already read of these matters in the press and the Minister has read out something that other hon. Members have had, the Press has had and others have. Is it not wasting the time of the House to spend 30 minutes or 40 minutes on a statement and questions on a White Paper that has already been given to some? Would it not be better for the Minister to hand copies to all hon. Members, or to make copies available immediately to all hon. Members as soon as he makes it available to the press and others?

Mr. Whitehead: In view of what has been said, Mr. Speaker, perhaps in part in my brief absence, I should say on behalf of the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith), who appeared in the radio programme with me this morning, that not only had neither of us seen the White Paper but nor had the BBC at the time that the programme was broadcast.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It was known that it was coming up when you took part in the programme.

Mr. Whitehead: It is worth saying that the embargo system has its failings. However, to my knowledge no organisation within broadcasting or the press has broken the embargo in this instance.

Mr. Fell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has said that he did not make the White Paper available. That I quite understand. Of course he did not make it available. However, in view of what has been said by several hon. Members, would it be unreasonable to suggest that it would be sensible for the Minister to call a departmental inquiry into whether it was made available?

Mr. Ioan Evans: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We should take note of the fact that whereas normally we cannot get a copy of a White Paper from the Vote Office until the Minister stands at the Dispatch Box, today the White Paper was available at 2.30 p.m. We should appreciate and take note of that fact.

Mr. Speaker: Notice will have been taken of everything that has been said.

BILL PRESENTED

NATIONAL LAND FUND

Mr. Patrick Cormack, supported by Mr. Andrew Faulds, Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, Mr. Stanley Newens, Sir David Renton, Mrs. Joyce Butler, Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, Mr. Jasper More, Mr. Robert Rhodes James, Mr. W. Benyon, Mr. Tony Durant, and Mr. Tom Ellis, presented a Bill to give effect to recommendations of the Expenditure Committee of the House of Commons in their Third Report, Session 1977–78, relating to the Fund by making further provision with respect to the administration of the Fund; to extend the purposes for which the Fund may be used; and to change the title of the Fund to "The National Heritage Fund": And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 189].

INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY (LOCAL AND COMMUNITY RADIO)

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision with respect to the duty of the Independent Broadcasting Authority to provide local sound broadcasting services; and to make consequential provision in connection with those services.
Such is the topicality of the Bill that it could be treated as an extension of the question-and-answer session that we have just had.
The purpose of the Bill is to get immediate action—I stress "immediate"—because there is a feeling by hon. Members on both sides of the House that we must move at once, to implement the recommendations of both the Annan report and the Government's statement today on broadcasting, to license local radio stations in all parts of the country.
I am sure that I shall have the support of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) for the second purpose of the Bill, which is to create a second tier of small radio stations to serve minority communities.
Local radio has proved to be extremely popular with the listening public. The existing 19 stations licensed by the IBA boast an audience of 13½ million adults per week. Independent local radio, because it is financed by advertising, has the advantage of providing people with what they want at no cost to the public purse. In order to provide a service for most listeners in the United Kingdom, we need another 21 independent radio stations.
Both the BBC and IBA engineers agree that the frequencies are available, and yet the Government have dragged their feet. People in many parts of the country are deprived of the service which they have shown they want and which can be provided at no cost to the Exchequer.
Local radio has proved that it can provide an up-to-date service not only of general interest but a specialist information service for local authorities, con-

sumers, business men, farmers, air travellers and others. Hon. Members who listen to London's local radio stations will be aware of the excellent reports on traffic conditions and problems with flights in and out of London's airports. Local information often helps the emergency services to deal with floods, power cuts and other unforeseen problems.
Local radio has also provided advisory programmes to help people with personal matters such as legal and financial problems and how to find the best deal when shopping. Local radio also plays a valuable role in communicating with minority groups. Serious thought should be given to extending the concept of community radio to allow ethnic minorities in our cities to have their own radio stations. We could also consider broadcasting in other languages.
Local radio also provides a much-needed opportunity to local businesses to inform communities of the products and services that they offer. Many small businesses can afford to advertise only on local radio.
The most beneficial effect of local radio is that it fosters a sense of community, a sense of belonging and a sense of place in what is increasingly becoming an impersonal and disoriented world. One of the reasons why people feel so alienated from institutions and political processes—and, even more worrying, from their representatives in this House—is that they do not feel part of the democratic process. People are becoming more and more frustrated at being unable to express their views or to air their real grievances. Through phone-in and discussion programmes, local radio enables people to influence their local community leaders when issues of local importance are decided.
Most radio stations have far too large an area to have a genuine appeal to the local communities. In London, for example, two independent radio stations and the BBC local station have a potential audience of 10 million people. In no sense can that be described as a local community. In contrast Los Angeles, with a population of 6 million, has 30 local radio stations. New York, with a population of 8 million, has even more stations.
I understand that there are no longer any serious technical problems to prevent a radio station operating with a low-power transmitter covering an area as small as one square mile. Frequencies can be provided by making greater use of the VHF waveband.
The Bill sets out to license more radio stations at an initial cost which is not prohibitive and at no expense to the taxpayer. At the moment, the shareholders' capital needed to set up an independent radio station is in excess of £250,000. Resources on that scale are not generally available in small local communities. With a cheaper rental fee from the IBA, and by using low-powered equipment, local radio stations could be launched for a few thousand pounds. Many different stations could serve the interests and foster the aspirations of many diverse and varied communities.
The Government's statement today that local radio will be extended is most welcome. But, we must ask, why so late? Was the Home Office instructed by the Minister not to issue the new frequencies, which it could have done easily? The excuse was that he was awaiting a decision on the fourth television channel. That is not acceptable. The two matters are totally separate.
Perhaps this Socialist Government are so prejudiced against private enterprise when it is clearly successful and profitable that the Minister was instructed to procrastinate. Who would have issued those instructions? Could it be the national executive of the Labour Party? Alternatively, could it be the Trades Union Congress or as a result of the views of Mr. Moss Evans, the leader of the Transport and General Workers' Union? Perhaps his views are prevailing, as was reported in The Times in February 1977, when it was stated:
Mr. Evans considers that it is necessary to have real public control of television and radio

in order to give the public freedom of expression.
We all know what that means. Mr. Evans goes further and says that the TUC has
already defined the instruments necessary to the attainment of these events.
That is dangerous country. We have already seen how a Socialist Government are prepared to bow to union pressure even when it is in the interests of only a small minority of union members. For evidence of that we need look no further than the closed shop for journalists.

Mr. Ian Gow: And the Treasury branch.

Mr. Hamilton: I am afraid that this Government could be in danger of adopting the attitude of Mr. Brezhnev, who, when asked by a western reporter what he thought of the freedom of the press, replied:
Such things should not be allowed to destroy the relationship of the trust and affection which must develop between a Socialist Government and its people.
We need more local radio stations, if for no other reason than to ensure that the role allotted by Mr. Brezhnev to his media never becomes a reality here.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Archie Hamilton, Mr. Tim Rathbone, Mr. Jim Lester, Mr. Tony Durant, Mr. Julian Critchley and Mr. Robin F. Cooke.

INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY (LOCAL AND COMMUNITY RADIO):

Mr. Archie Hamilton accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to the duty of the Independent Broadcasting Authority to provide local sound broadcasting services; and to make consequential provision in connection with those services: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 188]

SCOTLAND BILL

Lords amendments in lieu of certain of their amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, considered.

Clause 20

THE SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 9, line 34, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendments to the Bill in lieu thereof—

No. 1, in page 9, line 31, leave out "A Scottish" and insert "The First"

No. 2, in page 9, line 34, leave out "him" and insert "a Scottish Secretary"

No. 3, in page 9, line 34, at end insert—
Provided that he has obtained the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service as to the number of officers and servants in each grade.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Lords amendment no. 1.
Lords amendment no. 1, in page 9, line 31, leave out "A Scottish" and insert "The First"

4.49 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may also take Lords amendments nos. 2 and 3.

Mr. Ewing: These amendments deal with the requirement, when appointing civil servants to serve in the Scottish Assembly, to obtain the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service.
The requirement for the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service as to numbers and grades would provide for an unwarranted interference by a United Kingdom Minister in the affairs of the Assembly. In the Government's view, the Assembly would be quite justified in regarding such control as totally unacceptable. They are being given substantial powers and it is for the Assembly and Executive to decide how many staff the Executive needs to carry them out. Such staff will be transferred or will be

appointed in the normal way by the Civil Service Commission to meet the requirements of the Assembly.
The manpower implications of any policy will need to be weighed as an important component in the exercise of responsibility for devolved matters and an important constraint will be the need to meet staff costs out of the block fund. It seems at times that that is not appreciated. To provide for the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service as to numbers carries with it the implication that the Government could frustrate policies of the devolved Administration and would be constantly monitoring performance and efficiency. This could well provide for conflict.
No similar control is attempted for local government and any attempt to impose it would, very reasonably, be resented. Surely the Scottish Administration is not to be more strictly under Whitehall control than is local government? Is it seriously to be supposed that the Minister for the Civil Service should have the final say in the numbers of, say, typists and messengers needed to support the devolved administration, because that is one of the issues?
Nor do the Government think it appropriate to stipulate that officers and servants should be appointed by the First Secretary. Civil Servants are generally—as a matter of law—appointed by Ministers, not by the Prime Minister, and the Government can see no reason for not following this procedure in relation to the Scottish Executive. Of course, if the First Secretary wished to coordinate the appointment of officers and servants by individual Scottish Secretaries it would be open to him to make arrangements to do so. The Government do not think it appropriate to impose such a requirement.
At risk of incurring the wrath of the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), who took me to task in our earlier debates when I compared Wales with Scotland, perhaps I may say that on this occasion it is valid to make the point again. When the other place discussed similar official Opposition amendments to the Wales Bill in Committee they were withdrawn after a short debate. Indeed, on hearing that the control of numbers would be let to the Assembly within the limits of the


money available in the block fund, Lord Elton welcomed the fact that although the Government would offer any necessary advice, the Assembly would not be
placed in a governmental straitjacket".— [Official Report, House of Lords, 21st June 1978; Vol. 393, c. 1287.]
But that is precisely what the Official Opposition are now seeking to impose on the Scottish Assembly. We believe that that is totally unnecessary and for those reasons we ask the House to disagree with the Lords in this amendment.

Mr. Leon Britian: When the original Lords amendment came to this House it proposed in effect that each appointment of civil servants to the Scottish Executive had to be approved by the First Secretary and by the Minister for the Civil Service. It was significant that in the Division on that Lords amendment the Government secured a majority against of only nine, even though there was no debate. The reason for there being no debate was that the guillotine fell before the opportunity for one arose. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the Lords returned to the issue, and these amendments in lieu propose that the appointment should be made by the First Secretary, with the Minister of the Civil Service approving only the number of officers and civil servants for each grade of appointment.
We believe that these amendments raise the crucial question of the relationship between the Civil Service in Edinburgh and the Civil Service in London, and that in turn reflects the crucial question of the relationship between the two Governments—the Government in Edinburgh and that in London. We believe that that relationship has not been fully and properly thought out and that the Government's scheme seeks for political reasons to obscure the implications of the fact that this Bill creates a new and quite separate Government within the United Kingdom. These amendments take account of the fact that by creating a separate Executive for Scotland within what is supposed to remain a unitary State, an immense potential for conflict and confusion has been created.
The Lords are also seeking to reduce the area of conflict and confusion by at

least defining more precisely the relationship at civil servant level between Edinburgh and Whitehall. This is an issue that cannot be avoided, and the attempt to blur the problem which we say exists in the Bill if it is unamended smacks of political expediency and should not be supported. When one considers the whole question of the role of civil servants who will be available to the Scottish Executive one starts with a basic ambivalence which is not resolved in the Bill and which these amendments touch upon.
Once the decision was taken not to have a separate Scottish Civil Service, the Government were buying themselves a whole series of problems. It was possible in setting up a devolved Assembly and devolved Government in Scotland to reach the opposite conclusion, and to have a separate Civil Service. However, the problems we are debating arise from the decision not to have separate arrangements. That decision was perfectly understandable and one with which we on this side have a great deal of sympathy. Such a move would be to go very far along the road towards the creation of a separate Scottish State, and we do not want to travel that road. To that extent we share an objective with the Government.
But we say that by not creating a separate Scottish Civil Service the Government have created problems which the Bill does not resolve. One inevitably asks whether, if the civil servants available to the Scottish Executive are not to be members of a separate Civil Service, just what will they be and under whose control.
Clause 62 begins by saying that
'Service as an officer or servant of a Scottish Secretary or of the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General shall be service in the home civil service of the state.
Hon. Members will recall some of the debates we had about the meaning of the
home civil service of the state",
about the concept of the State, and about which State we were discussing. It was as a result of those debates that the expression was changed in another place to
Her Majesty's home civil service".
However, one then comes on to the rest of the clause where one is told that appointments to any position, such as of an officer or civil servant, "shall be made accordingly". As I think I had occasion to point out in another debate, that really


is an infuriatingly ambigious provision. The word "accordingly" is required to bear a strain which it simply cannot properly bear.
5.0 p.m.
What is the arrangement that is actually proposed? During debates on another occasion, we were told that all such matters as promotion, pension and grading came under the control of the Civil Service Department, and that was really what 'accordingly" was meant to work.
We were also told that the arrangement would be a perfectly satisfactory one because the people would be appointed to work for a period for the Scottish Executive and while they were working for the Scottish Government they would owe their loyalty there, and that that would all work out quite well. We were told that after a period of secondment to the Scottish Government, they would return to a United Kingdom Government Department and there would be no problem because they would continue at all times to be appointed accordingly—to use the words of clause no. 62—and be members of a single Civil Service.
I believe that to put the matter that way, as the Government have consistently done, is greatly to underestimate the strain that will arise as a result of the civil servants being employed in that way. It is one thing to work for some sort of autonomous agency and retain one's status as a civil servant and then return and work in a formal Government Department, but it is quite a different matter to work not just for some independent or semi-independent autonomous public body but for a separate Government, which is what we are creating for Scotland, and, what is more, a Government who may be locked in conflict with the United Kingdom Government, and then to return to the service of the United Kingdom Government as if nothing had happened.
That is a quite different dimension of service which the Bill seeks to create. I suggest that it is one that the Government have really not faced up to.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: It is especially so as we stumbled on the fact last Thursday that a Minister in one Government can actually take to court and sue a Minister in the other Government.

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful for that intervention. This debate exposes a different facet of the same sort of problem on which the issue that we discussed last Thursday enabled us to focus.
I am not pretending that these amendments can resolve the basic difficulty that has been created by the decision to retain a United Kingdom Civil Service and not to create a separate Scottish one while creating a separate Scottish Government. Amendments of this kind cannot do that. But what they can at least help to do is to resolve some of the outstanding questions as to the actual appointment of the Scottish civil servants.
What the Government say—they have said it again today—is that all will work in a perfectly satisfactory way so long as the Scottish Executive appoint the civil servants from among those who are official civil servants and have met the requirements of the Civil Service Commission, and—this point was particularly stressed by the Minister—as long as the Scottish Executive have to pay for the civil sevants that they appoint.
The argument goes that this is an effective brake because if the Scottish Government appoint too many civil servants, they will have to pay for them out of the block grant. We were accused of not understanding that, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I fully take that point into account. The argument presumably continues that if the Scottish Government appoint too many civil servants and take too much money out of the block grant, there will be less money for other things, and if the Scottish electorate notice that standards of education or housing are depreciating in Scotland because too many civil servants have been appointed and too much money has been spent on expanding the Civil Service, there will be a political price to pay by the Government of Scotland at the next elections for the Scottish Assembly.
But that argument, attractive as it is—which leads the Minister to say that for us to intervene in any way would be an unwarranted intrusion in the scheme of devolution and would be a manifestation of a refusal to accept the consequences of devolution—ignores one key point which makes it inevitable for there to be a United Kingdom dimension to appointments to the Scottish Executive


and to servants and officers of the Scottish Executive. The dimension is precisely the one that I have already touched upon—namely, that all these appointments are to be from a Civil Service—whether one calls it the Domestic Home Civil Service of the State, Her Majesty's Domestic Civil Service, or whatever title one chooses to give it—which is operated and maintained on a United Kingdom-wide basis.
That means that there will be a limited pool of people available from whom the appointments have to be made, both in the total number of the people available and as far as the particular grades are concerned. Therefore, any appointment that a Scottish Secretary makes is bound to have implications for the United Kingdom public service as a whole. Simply to say that it does not matter how many civil servants the Scottish Executive appoint, that it is up to them and they are spending the money out of their block grant, and we must not interfere in that, is to ignore the fact that those appointments are coming from a single pool of United Kingdom civil servants.
That is why the Scottish Secretary cannot just be allowed to decide on the extent of staffing matters without any check at all. This is not a question of seeking to impose fetters on Scotland or seeking to ignore the implications of devolution. It is a question of seeking to have at least a mechanism for preventing arrangements being made by the Scottish Executive which could have potentially damaging implications for the Civil Service as a whole.
I am not suggesting that there is any necessary reason to believe that the Scottish Assembly and the Scottish Executive will not listen to the advice of the Civil Service Department or that the Scottish Assembly or Executive will be unduly profligate. But what I sam saying is that to give them carte blanche to draw upon the numbers of United Kingdom civil servants, at whatever level and whatever grade they consider to be necessary for the maintenance of the Scottish Government, is a fantastic proposition. It has been allowed to remain in the Bill only because the Government shy away from the implications of refusing to set up a Scottish Civil Service and are retaining a United Kingdom Civil Service while

at the same time setting up a separate Government within the confines of what is supposed to be remaining a unitary State.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Fantasy appears not to be restricted to the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of a single pool of civil servants. That might be read outside this House to mean that at any given moment there is a defined number of civil servants, and that if the Scottish Assembly takes more, there will be fewer for other functions. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that that would be arrant nonsense. That is not the implication of the Bill at all. What the Bill actually means, as he well knows, is precisely that if the Scottish Assembly employs more civil servants, it will have less money for other functions. In that sense, and in that sense alone, can the hon. and learned Gentleman talk of a pool, but he ought to define his terms first.

Mr. Brittan: With great respect, I think that on this occasion the hon. Gentleman's view is misconceived. I am sorry if I did not put the point sufficiently clearly. At any given moment, there is a fixed number. It is absurd to say that there is not a fixed number. It is possible, at the next second, perhaps, or the next day, next week or next month, to employ more civil servants. But it is arrant nonsense—to use the hon. Gentleman's phraseology—to say that at any given moment there is not a fixed pool. Of course there is a fixed pool.
There are those who are members of the Home Civil Service, and they are a defined number at a particular time. What will happen if the Scottish Executive choose to appoint an inordinately large number of civil servants is that those will be plucked out of the pool that exists at that moment. That certainly must be so. There is no way of avoiding that. It is bound to be the case, and for Scotland the consequence of paying for it is that there is less money available for other things.
It also has consequences for the United Kingdom Government and Civil Service because if, for example, a particularly large number of people of a particular grade are taken, they are not available for the rest of the United Kingdom Departments. More can be recruited and


more can be promoted, but at that time they will not be available. The effect of requiring more to be recruited or more to be promoted is a serious distorting impact on the United Kingdom Government and Civil Service as a whole.
Therefore, these amendments are saying that in such a situation it is important that the Civil Service Department should have some control. In saying that there should not be any control, the Government are ignoring the blindingly obvious—that, if one has once taken the decision not to have a separate Civil Service for Scotland, it must be essential to retain United Kingdom control of the number of officers and servants in each grade. That is all that is being sought to be done. There is no question of foisting on the Civil Service of Scotland, the devolved Assembly or the Executive any particular individuals or of denying them any particular individuals. It is simply a question of maintaining minimum control over numbers within the particular grades.
That is a central point, and a reasonable one, which the United Kingdom Parliament ought to take when it is implementing a scheme which, rightly or wrongly, and for perfectly understandable reasons, retains a United Kingdom Civil Service even though a devolved Executive is being set up for Scotland.
It is the situation at present that Ministers and Government Departments in Whitehall cannot just significantly add to the strength of their Departments without the permission of the Minister for the Civil Service, and it is ridiculous to allow the new Scottish Service to do just that in a totally unfettered way. It is inconsistent with the concept of there being a single United Kingdom Civil Service for there not to be United Kingdom control not of individual personnel but over numbers and grades of people taken by the Scottish Assembly.
Many other uncertainties remain in the proposed arrangements for the Civil Service to which their lordships have sought to get an answer but have obtained none. There is nothing in the Bill to indicate the probable number or size of the Scottish Departments, yet the fear of empire-building for the best of motives cannot be allayed if there is not the faintest indication of the probable number and size of Departments.
The estimate in the Bill of a probable 750 extra civil servants could be greatly exceeded. There has been no reasoned explanation why that figure is the right one and all higher figures are incorrect. Nor is there any clear indication how the Scottish Departments will be established and recruited. We understand the idea to be that for the most part large numbers of people from the existing Scottish Office will be handed over. But what of the rest? What mechanism will there be for the Scottish Executive to choose particular people it wants to have from the Home Civil Service generally?
These are all unanswered questions, encompassing genuine worries and anxieties which, if the Government were genuinely trying to set up a viable scheme, they would have tried to answer long ago. But they have not made any attempt to do so. We cannot extract or squeeze answers from them in the form of amendments. But what we can do in the form of amendments is try to retain at least the existing residual degree of control implicit, not in our concept of devolution or of the scheme but in the Government's own concept, because that concept retains the unity of the Civil Service in name. Our amendment does at least the minimum to retain it in reality.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Our argument is becoming, I suspect, a little repetitious and sometimes a little boring. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) has just stated again a case that has been destroyed on many occasions. The argument for having a unified Civil Service is well known. If we did not have a unified Civil Service, we should have a small Scottish Civil Service side by side with a very large British Home Civil Service, and promotion prospects within the Scottish service would therefore be very much lower than in the wider Civil Service for people of considerable ability. Anyone with ability would inevitably gravitate, unless motivated by purely nationalistic reasons, to the United Kingdom Civil Service.
5.15 p.m.
It is imperative that we keep an open career structure for the sake of good government, in both Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole. That said, all the rest of the provisions of the Bill in essence follow. Let us take the hon.


Gentleman's argument about a pool. I found it fascinating.
The hon. Gentleman said that at any given moment there is a defined number of civil servants. That is nonsense. There is nothing of the kind. At any given moment there is a given number of civil servants, but this House does not debate and amend proposals for a reduction in the number of civil servants from X to Y in month Z. In that sense there has never been a pool.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that the Scottish Assembly will be able to recruit purely from among existing civil servants. That is an absurd argument, particularly so when the Assembly will have been running for some years. Certainly, at the lower grades the Assembly is likely to recruit outside—for example, for clerks, typists and so on—in the way that any Government Department does and, indeed, as any outside organisation does.
If the hon. Gentleman says "But there is a defined pool of talent at under-secretary level", he may be right. There may be some measure of truth in that. Although I would hate to give the definition of the talent required, and I challenge the hon. Gentleman to do it, there may be a defined pool of people capable of serving as under-secretaries successfully in Government Departments. But if the Scottish Assembly wishes to appoint as under-secretaries persons who do not have the requisite talent, or if it wishes to lure away under-secretaries serving in United Kingdom Government Departments, that is a matter for the Assembly, although in the latter case I should be surprised if it were successful on many occasions, because why should an individual wish to destroy his career prospects in the wider United Kingdom Civil Service by accepting appointment at exactly the same level in the service of the Scottish Assembly? We have never heard an argument from the Opposition that would suggest that there is such a degree of mania amongst Scotsmen.
What is the basic argument? The hon. Gentleman told us that it was a matter of political expediency. Who is supposed to gain politically is beyond my comprehension. Let us take two points which arise from the amendment. The first is clear—that all appointments shall be

made not by a Scottish Secretary but by the First Secretary in Scotland. The equivalent situation here would be to say that all appointments to the Civil Service should be ratified by the Prime Minister, but we do not say that. Why should we impose that rule on the Scottish Assembly when we do not impose it on ourselves?
We do not do it in our own case for a very simple reason. Every Department has its own requirements from time to time. It will negotiate with the Civil Service Department, take its advice, and, within the constraints operating from time to time, it will appoint the person who seems most suitable, with, in the higher grades, the advice of the Civil Service Commission and so on. That seems to me to be a reasonable procedure. It is perfectly true that the Government as a whole and collectively seek to set limits for the total size of the Civil Service. What leads us to believe that the Scottish Assembly will not do the same?
That brings me to the second point in the amendment sent to us from another place. It is simply that the Civil Service Department of the United Kingdom Government should be able to control the total number and grades of staff in respect of the Scottish Assembly. Of course, the Civil Service Department will offer advice, if it is requested. Of course, the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Assembly will form a view on what proportion of their expenditure should go on the salaries, pensions and the like, of the civil servants who are in their service. I was about to say "in their employ" but that would be a misuse of terms. Of course it will. There will be a collective view.
I have no doubt that the First Secretary will have—as the Prime Minister would have in the United Kingdom Government—a rather powerful voice in the formation of that view. But we do not say here whether the Prime Minister shall determine what part of total United Kingdom expenditure shall be formed by the salaries, the pensions and the like of civil servants, and we should not say the same in Scotland, nor do we say here, in terms of the United Kingdom, that the Civil Service Department shall have a determining influence upon what proportion of


total public expenditure shall be formed by those elements within it.
Why should we say that within the Scottish context alone? There is no good reason for so doing. Devolution is about letting the Scots determine their own priorities. If the Scots want to be so silly—I do not believe for a second that they will—as to say that they will over-staff the Assembly and the Executive, and that they will over-grade those who are to service them, that is their own affair, because they will simultaneously be saying, within a block grant system, that they will have less available for other services.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Mr. Timothy Raison (Aylesbury) rose—

Mr. Fowler: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. There is only one way out of that, and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) knows what it is. It is to levy a surcharge on local rates. If the Scottish Assembly were crazy enough to do that in order to pay an over-staffed Civil Service, it would pay the price for that policy at the next election.

Mr. Raison: Is not the hon. Gentleman overlooking two facts? The first is that in the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister is the head of the Civil Service Department, and that Department has a very big say in the number of civil servants who can be taken on. That is its purpose. Secondly, is it not also the case that service as an officer under a Scottish Secretary counts as service in the Home Civil Service of the State? In other words, once someone has been appointed as a civil servant under the Scottish Assembly, he automatically becomes a member of the Home Civil Service of the State, that is, of the United Kingdom as a whole. Surely these two points provide very powerful reasoning for the Lords amendment.

Mr. Fowler: Concerning the hon. Gentleman's first point, he knows as well as I do that although the Prime Minister is technically the head of the Civil Service Department, he does not exercise the functions of a head of Department in any effective fashion. That applies to any Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman knows equally well that the way in which the number of civil servants in the service

of any Department is determined from time to time is not by diktat from the Prime Minister, and it would be a terrible mistake to write that into the law in regard to Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman is, of course, right on his second point, but his whole premise is that the Scots will behave in a silly fashion and appoint very large numbers of people who would not have been appointed in those numbers or at those grades within the United Kingdom system, or alternatively appoint the same number of people but at higher grades. There is no evidence to suggest that that is true. Indeed, there is a powerful financial constraint, in the shape of the block grant, which prevents that becoming true.
The whole of this argument is based upon the usual premise, namely, distrust of the Scots. It can be no more. I am not surprised to get this from another place, because it is not noted, whatever its merits—I hasten to say this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because we must not criticise another place here—for its understanding of democracy in the United Kingdom as a whole, let alone in the component parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that the Members of another place will in future, when they get on to democratic questions, decide that they had better confine themselves to their own areas of expertise. I note that all the companies which were recently discovered to have overcharged the Post Office were chaired by Members of another place. They have a certain expertise, and I hope that they will stick to it and not involve themselves in questions of democratic machinery.
As I have said repeatedly in this House, devolution is about letting the Scots fix their own priorities. It is not about seeking to determine those priorities here in Whitehall and in Westminster. In that context, what has been suggested by the other place makes no sense whatsoever. If the Scottish Assembly wishes to spend more on the Civil Service, in my view it is perfectly entitled so to do, because it will spend less on other services and it will subsequently pay the price. That is what devolution is about.

Sir David Renton: I hope that the hon. Member for The


Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) will not mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I say that I am surprised that during his sojourn in government he did not discover more about it. He said that the Prime Minister, in his capacity as the principal Minister for the Civil Service, has no say in such matters as staff levels and, indeed, such matters as appointments and various other things. That, if I may say so, is just not the true position. As to the rest of the hon. Gentleman's speech, I hope that, if he will be so kind as to follow what I say, he will find that I may be able to answer those of his points which are capable of rational discussion.
I think that it would help the hon. Gentleman—and, indeed, the House as a whole—if one were to start one's thinking in this matter by referring to the words of the Minister of State, Scottish Office, in another place. Lord Kirkhill pointed out that
the United Kingdom Government will determine initial staff levels.
Having come from a Government spokesman, I presume that to be the true position.
We have to consider, therefore, what will happen at the next stage, when the Scottish Executive has got under way. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, went on to say that
The Scottish Executive will have control of staff matters only when it has taken full control of devolved matters".
Of course, the extension of the staff, when that situation arises, will depend very largely upon the money available. By the same token that the United Kingdom Government will fix the initial level of staff, so will the United Kingdom Government fix the first block grant. It seems to me that inevitably—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—they will have to fix it without consultation with the Scottish Executive, because at first there will not be a Scottish Executive. It will, I assume, be worked out—if such a misfortune should arise that it has to be worked out—between the Scottish Office, the other Departments concerned with devolved subjects and, of course, the Treasury. We know that the Treasury will have the last word, but there will be no opportunity at that initial stage for the Scottish Executive to have a say.
5.30 p.m.
We come to the next phase. Again I refer to the words of the noble Lord, because it was suggested to him that at that next phase there might be a bit of empire building within the Scottish Executive. It was suggested that the First Secretary would be the right man to check that tendency towards empire building. This leaves aside the question whether the Minister for the Civil Service should have a say. I shall come back to that. But the noble Lord said this:
The Government consider that this also is a matter which the Scottish Executive can be left to work out for itself".
He added:
The Government believe that the best safeguard is that of finance, as well as the pressure of public opinion."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20th July 1978; Vol. 395, c. 492.]
Let us just consider the practical operation of this. Let me first of all dispose of public opinion. Although public opinion, once a thing has happened, can become indignant, public opinion has precious little to say when decisions are being taken which may affect the people's pockets. In the nature of things it is not always possible for public opinion to have a say in advance. It is afterwards, when it protests, that public opinion has that say, and that is too late.
I believe that once the thing has got under way, when the first financial year is about half-way through, there will be consultation as to what the second year's block grant should be. When the Scottish Secretaries are established in office it is likely that they will be asking, or will be tempted to ask, for more money to come out of the block grant to pay more officials in order that they may adequately, they will maintain, perform their devolved services. This is where the scramble—and it may become a scramble—for officials will arise, whether we call it a pool, a supply, a number or whatever. There will be a scramble, there will be competition.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: I thought the Opposition believed in competition.

Sir D. Renton: I do not know whether the hon. Member for The Wrekin is trying to make me give way to him while he remains in a seated position, but unless he stands up I do not propose to do so.
Perhaps for the last time ever, I propose to refer to that great mine of information, the report of the Kilbrandon Commission. The Commission considered the question of how a devolved Assembly or an Executive might be served. We took note of the fact that there is a very fine section of the United Kingdom Civil Service which serves in Scotland. After all, there are some famous examples of Scottish civil servants rising to the very top. I can name two men who were Permanent Under-Secretaries of State at the Scottish Office and who later became Permanent Under-Secretaries of State at the Home Department. One of them was Sir John Anderson and the other was Sir Charles Cunningham, with whom I served in the Home Office. Although there are many other men who did not reach the very top like those two—but some others did—there is a very fine tradition of administrative ability and zeal in that part of the Civil Service which originated among Scotsmen. One should pay tribute to that.
But the great thing about it is that it is the United Kingdom Government and United Kingdom Departments which benefited, because there was complete interchangeability. Paragraphs 821 and 1146 of the Kilbrandon Commission report stressed the need for this interchangeability. The Bill makes no arrangement for interchangeability, and nor expressly do our amendments. But I suggest that by requiring the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service we place the Scottish Executives, through their First Secretary, in consultation with the Minister for the Civil Service.
In that indirect way, as a result of the amendments, interchangeability should be more easily secured. It would no doubt be discussed, because it would be hard to think of discussions as to the levels of staffing in the higher ranges without dealing with the very matter that I have mentioned, namely, the interchangeability of the best of the senior staffs.
Under the Bill as it stands, there is nothing to prevent the Scottish Executive from milking the Scottish Office and other United Kingdom Departments of many trained civil servants, including some of the best. That is another reason for requiring the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service as to the numbers of

officers and servants in each grade who may be employed. A further advantage of the amendments is that they will ensure consultation within the new Scottish Executive. In order to get that consultation, however, it would do no harm to write it into the Bill. I do not agree with the Under-Secretary of State that that would be putting the Scottish Executives into a straitjacket. If we say that no individual Scottish Executive can increase its staff without consultation with the First Secretary of the Scottish Executive, that is not a straitjacket. It is just a reasonable precaution to ensure consultation and co-ordination and to ensure that the question of the number of civil servants does not get out of hand because of over-zealous recruitment by Scottish Secretaries
Therefore, for these reasons, as well as the reasons advanced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), I would have expected the Government to welcome the amendments thankfully and with open arms. With the best will in the world, and with full opposition to the Bill, I would have thought that there were positive advantages in accepting these amendments. They do not go very far. I must confess that they do not go as far as I would have wished had I been drafting them. That might be concluded from what I have said. But I believe they should be accepted, first, for economy reasons, because it will be easier to control the expenditure and easier to control the temptation to expand the new bureaucracy. Secondly, I think they should be accepted for manpower reasons, perhaps we should say womanpower or person-power reasons, so that the best use is made of the trained manpower available in the best interests of both Scotland and the United Kingdom.
The Under-Secretary of State said that the amendments would lead to conflict. I would remind him, as has been pointed out from both sides of the House so often, that the whole Bill inevitably leads to conflict. I would have thought that the writing of this modest degree of consultation into the Bill, far from causing conflict, might avoid some conflict arising.
After all, we must never forget that that block grants will come before the House year after year. Hon. Members from this House representing any part of


the United Kingdom will be able to question Ministers about the size of the grant. They will want to know why increases have been made. I am certain that the House will demand eventually a White Paper showing the manpower position, as has been the case with the Armed Forces for some time. Something along the lines of these modest amendments could be a safeguard for the Government, and it is only in abject fooly that they still resist.

Mr. George Robertson: The hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) said that one of the reasons why this amendment was before us today was that it had not been debated before. I suggest that if he, along with other hon. Members, takes 25 minutes out of the three hours available to us, there will be precious little time for any of us to debate any of the points.
The amount of time that has been spent on this Bill—or on various parts of it—is a good indication of the need for devolution. We are passing a piece of legislation which has immense consequences. Hon. Members opposite will say that the Bill is frightening, dangerous and it has within it all the ingredients necessary to break up the United Kingdom. We on these Benches believe that it will strengthen and consolidate the United Kingdom—

Mr. Dalyell: Some of us.

Mr. Robertson: No, the majority of us. A large majority of people in this country believe that the Bill will consolidate and strengthen the United Kingdom.
It is a simple fact that large sections of the Bill will continue to go through this House undebated and undiscussed. That is nothing to do with the guillotine. This evening we have had the opportunity to discuss four separate groups of amendments that have been put forward by the other place. Yet we have had speeches from the Opposition lasting an inordinate length of time. In those circumstances it is impossible to get any form of detailed debate.
What is it that the other place is trying to do in this amendment? This is the last trench in the warfare in which the other place has taken part on devo-

lution. It is little more than that. Those of us who have gone through the debates in another place in great detail, attempting to find within them the seeds of the opposition to the various items that the Lords chose to amend, could only find—clearly and constantly—a feeling that the Bill was bad, dangerous and must be opposed.

Sir David Renton: The speeches so far in this debate have been relevant to the amendments. Is it right that the hon. Member should take up limited time by making a speech about the operation of the guillotine in a general kind of way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is, in fact, straying away from the detail, and he should confine himself to the amendments. He has made a few opening remarks which the Chair has accepted, but the Chair would be grateful if he would confine himself from now on to the subject under discussion—namely, amendments nos. 1, 2 and 3.

Mr. Robertson: If it appeared that the comments that I was making were diverting from the subject matter, I simply point out that I had concluded my introductory remarks and was about to assess the motivation of the other place in putting forward the amendment before us.
5.45 p.m.
There are perfectly good and consistent reasons for the Government opposing this group of amendments. The attempt is here again—in accord with all the attempts from the other place—simply to frustrate the philosophy and operation of the devolved legislature, as and when it is eventually created.
The real constraint on the number of civil servants and the number of people employed by the Assembly will be public opinion. That would be so, even if there were not sufficient constraint—as there is in this case—from the operation of the block grant and the inability of the Scottish Administration to expand its own employment force without cutting back on other necessary areas.
It is interesting that the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), who was a member of the Kilbrandon Commission—from whose principles the Conservative Party has


departed in many ways—bases his case on the fact that the Scottish Assembly itself might try to cream off the talent from the Home Civil Service. However, others have made their case on precisely the opposite grounds. They have suggested that the Scottish Assembly might, by the very nature of being parochial eventually end up as a dead end for those whose ambition is higher and wider than can be provided for by a parochial assembly.
We are trying to explore the hypothetical. We are trying to explore the possibilities for confusion and conflict, rather than exercising our minds on the opportunities that devolution will give to this country and to Scotland in particular. I believe that the assumption of irresponsibility, which lies at the base of the argument in this debate, as in so many other debates on devolution, is an assumption that is baseless. This will be proven only by history. The assumption is wrong. It is hypothetical and cannot be borne out by anything other than pessimistic foresight. Therefore, we should reject this amendment again.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) summed up the matter very succinctly when he said that what devolution is about is letting the Scots determine their own priorities. That is what we are arguing about. It is a very sad comment on the majority view on devolution in the other place that while it rejected a proposal to ask this House to reconsider important matters such as the electoral system, it concentrated on this issue. This is a clear example of the kind of nit-picking amendment of which we have had a great many on this Bill.
If the amendment were accepted it would deny the objective of devolution. Already there has been some talk about lack of debate on this matter. I am not surprised. The debate that has taken place so far this afternoon has hardly seen a scintillating clash of wills. It is quite clear, in fact, there has been a considerable labouring in order to find reasons to justify the amendment.
The objections to the amendment are fourfold. First, it represents interference by Westminster in the doings of the Assembly, which runs contrary to the whole object of the Bill.
Secondly, this interference would be excessive and of a detailed nature. As amendment no. 3 points out, we are being asked to approve that consent should be obtained
as to the number of officers and servants in each grade.
That is quite a detailed control.
Thirdly, although not a great deal has been made of this so far, the reference to "The First Secretary" in amendment no. 1 seems unnecessary and a matter which, in all conscience if one is to have devolution, should be determined by the Executive itself.
Lastly, there is the question of the financial control which is exerted through the block grant. In the first instance it was pointed out by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton)—who quoted Lord Kirkhill in another place, responding in turn to Lord Harmar-Nicholls—that the initial number of civil servants will be determined by the Government. Thereafter, it is in principle unacceptable, and in practical terms it would make for considerable friction if there continued to be detailed interference in terms of control.
I wish briefly to examine the arguments advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan). He referred to a basic ambivalence in the Government's position. He said that it was logical to argue for a Scottish Civil Service, although he personally does not argue in that sense. At an earlier stage I thought that it would be a good thing for us to have a separate Scottish Civil Service. The Government in principle accepted that this may eventually happen as devolution develops throughout the years.
I do not accept the argument touched on by the hon. Member for The Wrekin that because a Civil Service is small it must decline in quality. All the signs are that the reverse is the case. If we examine the smaller countries of Europe, such as the Netherlands, and particularly Luxembourg, we see examples of the civil services in those countries fulfilling very great roles. In those countries people have emerged to face the demands laid upon them. That is often one of the side consequences of devolution—namely, that size does not dilute and diminish


quality but brings out qualities which previously were not observed.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: I think that the hon. Gentleman has misrepresented me. The argument essentially is that it is highly desirable in the case of both Scotland and Wales that a career is open to talent. This preserves the right of people in the Scottish service and in the Welsh service to proceed with their career development in the United Kingdom Home Civil Service, and vice versa. That is a rather different argument.

Mr. Johnston: It is a different argument. That situation is preserved under existing legislation because interchangeability will continue. I was merely saying that even if one were to remove this interchangeability—which is not proposed—it would not have quite the calamitous results that are suggested.
The situation with which we are dealing is a practical one. It is as set out clearly and succinctly in the argument of Lord Kirkhill in the other place in the debate on 20th July reported in Lords Hansard at c. 492. He made clear that when staff were recruited through the Civil Service Commission they would be subject to the rules of the Civil Service, as is the case at the present. I do not see that that will be impossible to operate. I find it difficult to contemplate the idea that the Scottish Office somehow more than anybody else will be overzealous in recruitment. That is not a practical proposition.
The hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby mentioned clashes of loyalty. This matter was adumbrated by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on previous occasions, although the hon. Gentleman has been unaccustomedly silent today. However, I do not wish to goad him in any fashion. He envisaged the possibility of the Scottish Assembly bringing forward possibly even werewolves from the hills and all kinds of disasters.
As for clashes of loyalty, I must point out that the amendment does nothing to affect the position one way or the other. In the second place for a civil servant who is involved in the tough negotiations between the Scottish Assembly and Westminster in one month to find in the next

month that he must suddenly transfer his loyalties to the Government in Westminster, with whose representatives he was previously arguing, is not in degree greatly different from the position of a civil servant who is engaged in a furious tussle between a Labour Government and Conservative Opposition and who after a general election has to transfer his loyalty to a Government of a new political complexion. Again, I do not regard that as a practical difficulty.
The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire mentioned the concept of a common pool. This envisaged the idea that these arrangements proposed by the Government might have potentially damaging consequences on the Civil Service as a whole. That was certainly the view of the lion. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby. That is a variant of the argument advanced regularly in different forms throughout the debate that the Assembly when set up will be wholly irresponsible in its behaviour, will do things which Westminster would never contemplate doing and that the Assembly will behave in a totally unrestrained fashion. One almost had an image of civil servants pouring across the Cheviots, clogging the airlines, packing the trains, rushing lemming-like to this marvellous land in the north where there will be more and more civil servants and presumably higher rates of pay.
That is not a practical proposition, especially as it would leave the poor old English virtually civil servant-less. The idea that this change would have, in the words of the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby, a potentially serious distorting effect on the Civil Service is humbug.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Perhaps we should consider the prospect of what Westminster has achieved in this matter. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Scottish Office in London there are 76 civil servants and that in the Scottish Office in Edinburgh there are 11,760 civil servants? Perhaps Westminster has not done so badly in sending the civil servants to the north.

Mr. Johnston: I am not sure of the pertinency of that point, but I am sure that it adds to the sum of our knowledge.


However, the hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention points up the fact that Government intervention in these matters is in the end party political. Policy would change from one Government to another and that in itself surely would add to the potential friction.
The Minister in introducing the argument against accepting the amendment pointed out that we do not even apply this control to local authorities. Surely if this Assembly is to work effectively for the wellbeing of Scotland, it is a limitation that we should not impose.

Mr. Donald Dewar: There is a tendency and temptation for Conservative Members to support the other place when they return amendments just because that is the place the amendment comes from. There were some signs of that attitude in the persistent but unconvincing efforts of the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) to try to find arguments to bolster these amendments. He showed his normal fearsome staying power in the process and ran round the amendment in concentric circles, but at an ever increasing pace, looking desperately for arguments that were in point.
I thought that a good deal of the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks were not relevant—and I mean that they were not relevant in the larger sense rather than in terms of order. He said that there were a great number of difficulties about the Government's decision to go for a unified Civil Service. He conceded, by implication, that if the Government had come to any other decision he would have called down upon them every curse allowed by Parliament. However, he thought that, having decided on a unified system, it did involve difficulties, particularly over loyalty. But most of the difficulties he mentioned will not be solved or touched in any way by this amendment. If we are worried—and I believe that worry is illusory—about the loyalty of civil servants and the possibility of serving two masters, or observing a master in Scotland while looking over one's shoulder anxiously at the master in London, it would appear that the fact that there must be permission from the Minister with responsibilities for the Civil Service has no relevance to this problem,

if such a problem exists. A large number of the hon. and learned Gentleman's points go into that category.
6.0 p.m.
I look at this matter in a political fashion. There is a real problem with the Assembly which is constantly thrown up under a number of guises by the Opposition. I refer to the possibility of friction, discontent and, indeed, head-on collision between Westminster and the Scottish Assembly. That kind of tension and friction does not need to happen. The possibilities have been wildly exaggerated by Opposition Members as they have tried to oppose the Bill. But it is a worry.
If we build into the Bill measures that will annoy, irritate and aggravate, it will not be surprising if, at the end of the day, we discover that we have managed to provoke the friction feared by Opposition Members. Given the context of a Scottish Assembly, given the fact that it is to be trusted to legislate over wide areas of domestic responsibility in Scotland, given the fact that it is to be trusted to spend £2,000 million of public money by deciding whether it should go for hospitals, schools or road programmes and which should be squeezed to allow for expansion of the others—basic and fundamental issues—at the same time to say "By the way, lads, you cannot appoint any civil servants you may feel appropriate to carry out your tasks without having first got the permission of the Minister for the Civil Service" seems an insulting and, as the Under-Secretary of State said, unacceptable suggestion.
One question that I should like to ask, which I suggest may create difficulties is: what criteria will be applied by the Minister for the Civil Service when he gets a request for the appointment of additional civil servants in Scotland? What test is he supposed to apply when deciding whether to give permission? It is not just a matter of consultation, as was suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). I should be all in favour of consultation. I think that there should be constant consultation at every level in all areas between Westminster and the Scottish Assembly. But it is not consultation. We are told that before a Scottish Secretary can appoint officers and servants, he must have the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service. I do not


know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman feels about definitions in the English language, but for me there is a fundamental difference between saying "I must consult with someone" and "I must have that person's consent before I can act."

Sir David Renton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way in order that I may remind him of what I said. Perhaps I did not make it clear enough. I said that interchangeability was important. Neither the Bill nor the amendment deals with interchangeability. If consent for the numbers of officers and servants in each grade has to be obtained, there will inevitably be consultation and that will lead to improvements with regard to interchangeability.

Mr. Dewar: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said something more than that, but I am prepared to accept his assurance that I misheard him. Let us compromise on the fact that this is not consultation, but is consent which must be obtained before civil servants in certain grades and numbers can be appointed.
I go back briefly to the point that I was on. What test is to be applied by the United Kingdom Minister? There are a number of criteria that he could apply. For example, he could look at a request by the Scottish administration and say "You do not need civil servants of that standard or grade. You do not need them, because I do not approve of the purposes to which they are to be put." Presumably that would be ruled out—at least in theory. But, if he withheld consent, there might be a grudging feeling in people's minds that that was what he was saying; not that it would affect the balance of civil servants throughout the United Kingdom, but that he did not like what those civil servants were going to do.
When applying his criteria, he might say "I shall oppose this request and withhold my consent, because it will cost too much." It could cost too much in the sense that it would take too large a slice out of the block grant available to the Scottish Assembly. But, for all that, he might be entitled to use the withholding of consent as a way of trying to control what lie thought were unwise decisions on

choice made by the Scottish Assembly. I should imagine that the proponents of the amendment would hasten to tell me that would be an improper criterion to apply. But, again, people might feel that it entered into the calculations.
The Minister might think that by appointing skilled civil servants to try to improve the standard of education in Scotland we might be taking skilled personnel from England, and that would not be acceptable to the United Kingdom Government. If that is the criterion that at the end of the day is to be applied, it will be very hard for Scotland to accept, because, by the back door, it would be a considerable inhibition upon the right of the Assembly to make its choices on priorities within the devolved areas of responsibility.
The criteria which might be applied by the Minister for the Civil Service—criteria of which I at least can think—seem to be fraught with danger and misunderstanding.
There has been a great deal of sound and fury and lengthy speeches have been made on the subject of the amendment, but I suspect that, at the end of the day, consent would seldom be withheld. It would not be practical to withhold it for the reasons at which I have hinted. I think that, despite the wording of the amendment, we might discover that it amounted to no more than consultation. The Scottish Executive would indicate its requirements and these would be noted in terms of British Civil Service requirements. If that situation were to emerge, we should not need the amendment with its somewhat threatening overtones.
I believe that at the end of the day this power may never be used. If it is used, it will lead to friction and will be unacceptable in the general framework of devolution. Therefore, I should want nothing of it. I agree with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that it is unwanted interference. I should much prefer to let the Minister for the Civil Service off the hook, as it were, by taking away from him what amounts to an unnecessary and unwanted veto and to leave it to the good sense of the Scottish Assembly, under the disciplines of having to spend its money within a block grant which it cannot expand at its whim or will, to get on with the job. Therefore, I believe that we should expunge


from the Bill a proposal that will be seen as petty and restrictive and will or could lead, if people were not prepared to be broad minded and tolerant, to the kind of friction that we all want to avoid.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I intend to be very brief. We certainly cannot miss the significance of what we are now discussing, or the potent significance of the debate which is to follow this one, because—

Mr. Robin F. Cook: When?

Mr. Miscampbell: I hope not to delay it for long.
This debate raises the whole question of the relationship between England and Scotland. The fact that those who represent English seats have greeted what has occurred in the House over the last six months with a profound silence and deep boredom should not disguise the fact that, if irritants are created by the Bill, as they are, that silence will not long continue.
I think that the Government were right to decide not to have a separate Civil Service for Scotland. I take issue with the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), who said that it was likely that we should arrive at that situation. If I sensed him aright, he thought that it might benefit Scotland. I suggest that a separate Civil Service, as we have seen it in Northern Ireland, is the very hallmark of separation. It is the one thing that would make a clear divide within the State. It would be a very retrogressive and divisive step.
Even the present proposals, taking the civil servants to be drawn from a pool, appear to lead to the same difficulties and irritants. I suppose that it hardly matters on a personal level, but one can foresee difficulties when a civil servant serving in a Scottish Department finds himself advising a Scottish Minister who is in conflict with an English Department. I cannot believe that in the long run that would be a very happy position for that civil servant.
There is a problem here, if the limited amount of senior talent is to be divided without any control and if the Scots can appoint at will any number of civil servants that they wish. Of course, there will be constraints, but it would certainly

seem that with the limited talent available it would be likely to cause irritation between the two parts of the kingdom. Therefore, we propose that that should be controlled.
We should not give Scotland power to do that which Whitehall itself cannot do. Surely, a burgeoning Civil Service is something that we should view with concern. What we are discussing may not be the most potent of the irritants that are possible between us, but it is something that can be avoided, and because it can be avoided it should be.

Mr. Raison: It is rather a pity that no Minister from the Civil Service Department is present. I know that one always says that it is a pity that such and such a Minister is not present, but this illustrates a fact which I do not think the Government have grasped and which has not been grasped by the two loyal supporters who have suddenly sprung to the Government's defence as a result of two recent by-elections. The Government must be heartened to find that there are two Labour Members who support devolution. What has not been grasped is that once again the problem has implications for the United Kingdom and is not a purely Scottish problem, as the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), for example, seemed to think.
I should have thought that a Minister from the Department could have been here. We all know that Ministers are not very busy at present. That delicate lessening of the pile of paper in the in-tray which takes place before a General Election is, by all accounts, already happening. In the Tea Room one can see rather more Ministers sitting around having cups of tea than happens at the height of Parliament. Therefore, I believe that a Minister from the Department could have been here today.
The important point is that the civil servants whom we are discussing will be members of the home Civil Service of the State. The reasons for this have been explained like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), I think that it is right to have a unified Civil Service. I believe that that is an effective way in which to try to keep the United Kingdom together, and I make no complaint about that. But it produces genuine problems and consequences.
The Government owe us a better explanation than they have given as to how the process is to work. So far we have had no proper description from the Government of how the process of secondment will work. Is it to be the case that the Scottish Secretary—or the Chief Secretary, as we believe it should be—will come to the Civil Service Department and, as it were, requisition a certain number of civil servants? Will he says who they are to be, thet terms on which they come, and how long they will come for? Who will arrange all these matters?
As far as I know, all this is still left completely in a cloud. It has never been spelt out how the process is to work.
I cannot believe that the Scottish Secretary can be given a kind of carte blanche to help himself to what he wants. We need to look into the matter. We need to know the consequences of the very important fact that, if I read the Bill correctly, the Scottish Secretary can employ people in the home Civil Service of the State. He can say to somebody in Scotland "I am now taking you on not just to be a servant of the Scottish Assembly or the Scottish Executive but to be a part of the home Civil Service of the State."
No doubt there will be political advisers, those fashionable creatures of the present day. They will be taken on and will be part of the home Civil Service of the State. If I am wrong, the Minister will no doubt tell me, but that is my reading of the Bill.
6.15 p.m.
Under those circumstances, I cannot see that it is unreasonable that the Government—in effect, the Civil Service Department in Whitehall—should have a say about the way in which civil servants will be employed, the numbers to be employed, their grading, and so on. It is fairly well known that the Civil Service Department takes a certain view about the balance within the whole of that Department. When one corresponds with it, with Ministers, about problems to do with civil servants, the answers almost invariably have to do with the age bracket, the range of grading, the balance between one sort of specialism and

another, and so on. All these are real factors.
It seems to me that it is not remotely possible for the Scottish Executive to say "We want so many people", without the Civil Service having the power to say "This has a very serious impact on our structure. It has a serious impact on our training programme and on the grading within the Civil Service as a whole." That is exactly the kind of point a Minister from the Civil Service Department could have explained in winding up the debate, which would have been the proper thing to do. At least he would have been able to whisper into the Under-Secretary's ear, to put him right and make him understand, which so far he has shown no sign of doing, that there are serious problems here and that this is not merely a last-minute quibble by Opposition Members.

Mr. Fairbairn: I do not know that I quite understand my hon. Friend's fear. Is it that the Civil Service Minister and the Civil Service as a whole would try to resist its enlargement and aggrandisement, or that they might promote it? I do not understand which fear my hon. Friend has.

Mr. Raison: I am not now talking about the question of aggrandisement, although no doubt it could feature prominently. I am simply talking in terms of sheer practical common sense.
Without being wildly political about the matter, I believe that the Government have got it wrong. They are resisting a group of amendments which have a powerful element of common sense about them. It ill becomes Ministers not to take these arguments seriously but to dig in their toes when they could easily give way on this to the great benefit of the scheme as a whole.

Mr. Ian Gow: We heard an extraordinary speech from the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who wondered why the House was debating the amendment, though the Under-Secretary and four other Labour hon. Members said that the matter was so important that the Government did not feel able to give way on it. We on the Opposition Benches certainly believe that this series of amendments is of great importance.
Amendment no. 3 adds to the consistency of the Bill, because clause 62 states plainly and clearly for the whole world to see that the civil servants to be employed are members of the Home Civil Service. Therefore, any appointments made in Scotland will necessarily and inevitably diminish the number of civil servants available for appointment in the rest of the kingdom.
It is of the greatest importance that it should not be possible for the Scottish Executive to appoint any numbers it pleases, because that will have a direct effect upon manning levels in the rest of the kingdom. All that the amendment talks about is numbers. It says that the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service shall be required in regard to the numbers.
The question was raised in another place, where the most astonishing argument was advanced by the Minister of State, Scottish Office, as to why the amendments should be resisted. He gave the game away when he said that the United Kingdom would determine initial staff levels. If the United Kingdom Government is to determine initial staff levels, is it not wholly consistent that the numbers of civil servants appointed from the Home Civil Service shall remain subject to the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service?

Mr. Fairbairn: I always thought that my hon. Friend was rather keen on a civil servant-free society. If we can have Scotland siphoning every British civil servant away from England it would mean that England would be a haven because there would be no civil servants.

Mr. Gow: My hon. and learned Friend forgets that I am a Scot and I have no wish to inflict my fellow countrymen with hordes of further civil servants.
There was something else which the Minister of State said in another place. He said that when staff are sought they will be recruited through the Civil Service Commission and will be subject to the rules of the Civil Service. If these civil servants are to be recruited through the Civil Service Commission and are to be subject to the rules of the Civil Service, surely the numbers of officers or servants in each grade should be subject to the consent of the Minister res-

ponsible for the Civil Service. In the explanatory and financial memorandum at the start of the Bill we are told, on page vii, that:
the number of civil servants in Scotland will increase by about 750 over forecast levels.
No one believes that that figure will prove to be the case. What forecast of the number of additional civil servants required, even in a devolved Government Department, has ever erred on the low side? Everyone knows that the numbers will expand greatly.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) made such a cogent speech not only because he was anxious about the effect on the United Kingdom Civil Service but because he was anxious that there should be some control by the Head of the Home Civil Service over the numbers employed in Scotland. It is because I want to see the Minister responsible for the Civil Service being able to be questioned on this point in the House that I welcome the amendment which I believe would he a substantial improvement to the Bill.

Mr. George Younger: My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) put his finger on the strange thing about this debate. The strange factor is that the debate has been treated as if it were about devolution when really it is about how best to run the home Civil Service in the context of this Bill. We are all agreed that we want to have one home Civil Service. We are all agreed that we should have a Civil Service Department, with Ministers whose job it is to run the service. Some of the civil servants will be employed in Ministries governing United Kingdom Departments situated in London or other parts of the country while others will, in future, be employed in Edinburgh, or in London I suppose, as servants of this other Department which is to serve the Scottish Assembly.
All of that is common ground. All that the amendment seeks to do is to give the Civil Service Department and the Ministers posted to it the right to be consulted and to have a say in the number of civil servants required. It is extraordinary that the Minister responsible for the Civil Service Department is not present. Were it not for the fact that he will shortly be out of office, along with the


rest of the Government, the job that that Minister would be doing is very much under discussion, because the debate concerns these civil servants who will be employed in the home Civil Service but will be serving the Scottish Assembly.
With respect, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was wrong to suggest that the debate was to do with the question whether the Civil Service Department should interfere with the Assembly in matters of policy concerning the number of civil servants to be sent to the Ministry of Defence or the Department of Health and Social Security. This is done at present by a political decision and it will be done in the same way in future.

Mr. Dewar: Would the hon. Gentleman outline briefly what grounds he thinks would justify a refusal of consent by the Minister responsible for the Civil Service if, for example, the Scottish Assembly wished greatly to improve Civil Service support for, say, the penal services?

Mr. Younger: I am trying to be as quick as I can. I will answer the hon. Gentleman's question briefly. We have to look at this from the point of view of the Minister responsible for the Civil Service. His job is to give satisfaction to the Departments to which he supplies civil servants. He would consult the Departments, as he does now, to find out what they need, assess whether the needs were reasonable, discuss them with all the other Departments, and reach a decision. The Minister responsible for the Civil Service might disagree with the suggestion that the Department of Energy needed a certain number of people. No doubt he would dig his toes in if he thought that the numbers required were excessive.
We should not forget that the Minister running the Civil Service is not running an abstract concept. He has to provide for the career structure and for the pay and conditions of service of civil servants. He has to discuss matters with his colleagues and meet the pension requirements of the Civil Service. He would have to do all of this for those who will in future be responsible for the affairs of the Scottish Assembly. Yet he is to be

denied, for this portion of the people for whom he is responsible, any say about how many civil servants there should be in each grade. That seems to be illogical. It has nothing to do with the question whether we are in favour of devolution, or whether we have different views on the question of a separate Executive.
This debate is about how we can best arrange things. The system will not work best with this proposed method. I do not understand why the Government have not agreed to this most sensible arrangement whereby we recognise the fact that we are all agreed that the Civil Service Department will run the internal affairs of the civil servants who are to be employed in assisting the Scottish Assembly. That is all that is here involved. The Government are wasting time and energy in resisting an obviously sensible move. I am surprised at them. I hope that even now they will not hesitate to agree that this amendment is eminently sensible and should be accepted.

Mr. Harry Ewing: With the leave of the House, may I attempt to deal with the points that have been raised in the debate, as briefly as possible? I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will not think that I am paying scant regard to what has been said if I deal with matters quickly. I recognise that the House is anxious to proceed to the next debate.
The hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) has a profound capacity for turning the simplest issue into the most complex matter. I am left wondering whether he understands the current position in Scotland and in the Scottish Office. I have read his speech made in Edinburgh on Friday last, when he was describing to all and sundry the set-up in the Scottish Office. He said that the Lord Advocate and his staff were part of the Scottish Office set-up and that the Lord Advocate was a Scottish Office Minister—

Mr. Brittan: Mr. Brittan indicated dissent—

Mr. Ewing: Before the hon. and learned Member denies that, I advise him to read his speech. That was precisely what he said. The Lord Advocate is not a Scottish Office Minister; he is a United Kingdom Minister, and is no part of the Scottish Office.

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman referred to my speech. It is a waste of time to make this point, but the fact is that it is completely irrelevant to the point that I was making in Edinburgh. Then I was concerned with the role of the Scottish Office, with Ministers concerned with Scotland and with what was available for the handling of matters legal and executive in Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman wants to discuss my speech with me I shall be quite happy to do so. He did not refer to it in opening the debate, rightly. By resorting to a discussion of it in concluding the debate he must be scraping the barrel.

Mr. Ewing: The hon. and learned Member is rather touchy, and I think that that fact illustrates the weakness of his case, because he is not usually so touchy.

Mr. Britton: The hon. Gentleman is wasting time. This is a filibuster.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Ewing: The hon. and learned Member ought not to talk to me about filibustering; he took 25 minutes to say precisely nothing. I cannot believe that in that 25-minute period it was an accident of thinking that he omitted to refer to a fact which I made, which is that in the other place when these same amendments were discussed in terms of the Wales Bill, the Official Opposition withdrew them. They did not pursue them against the background of the explanation given during that debate. I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman's omission was an accident on his part. I happen to take the view that he did not want the House to concentrate too much on that aspect of this debate.
The hon. and learned Member raised one or two matters about the relationship between the Civil Service in Edinburgh and the Civil Service in London. It is a fact, of course, that we shall continue to have a unified Civil Service after devolution. The promotion procedures which prevail at the moment will prevail in the future. The mobile grades, as they are known, in the Civil Service will continue to be allocated to the Departments according to the exigencies and needs of the service. All the promotion vacancies will be trawled through the departments of the Scottish Executive, as they are trawled at the moment through the Scot-

tish Office for the Whitehall Departments. All these procedures will continue in the future as they have in the past.
That brings me to the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). He rightly spoke about those Scottish civil servants who had risen to the very top of their chosen careers. That will be possible in the future, just as it has been in the past. Even with the Conservative Party's opposition to devolution I do not accept that a Conservative Government would discriminate against a civil servant merely because he had chosen to serve the Scottish Assembly for a time during his career and so frustrate any opportunity that he might have to rise to the very top in the Civil Service. These opportunities which have been available in the past will continue to be available in the future.
The number or 750 civil servants referred to in the Bill has been quoted time and time again during this debate. We estimate that that will be the number of additional civil servants who will be required. It is envisaged that, as functions are transferred to the Assembly, the civil servants will be transferred with them. As for recruitment, this is where the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) was on to a fundamental misunderstanding of the position at the moment in the Civil Service and the position which will prevail in the future. Civil servants are not recruited by Ministers. They are recruited by the Civil Service Commission, and that will continue to be the position in the future.
I got the impression from the speech of the hon. Member for Aylesbury that it was based on the false premise that Ministers in the Scottish Assembly could recruit civil servants. In fact, for those grades of civil servants who are at present recruited by the Civil Service Commission—some grades are not, of course; typists and various other grades are delegated for recruitment purposes—the position will be the same in the future.

Mr. Raison: What the Minister is saying is important, but the fact remains that the Bill says that
A Scottish Secretary may appoint such officers and servants as he may think appropriate for the exercise of such of the powers mentioned in subsection (3) of this section as are for the time being exercised by him.


Where in the Bill is there the kind of qualification that the Minister has just implied? Where does it say that that provision is qualified by another provision confining him to appointing people who have been recruited to the service through the Civil Service Commission?

Mr. Ewing: With respect to the hon. Member for Aylesbury, it is not necessary to say in the Bill that Ministers do not have the right of recruitment to the Civil Service. The Bill talks about "appointment"—not appointment to the Civil Service, but appointment to posts of civil servants working or serving Ministers in the Assembly. These civil servants will come from the general pool of civil servants recruited in the normal fashion through the Civil Service Commission.
The hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby and the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) said that all that the amendments sought to do was to control the total number. That may be so. But that is just another way of saying that the Opposition want to control the appointments of civil servants in the Scottish Assembly. However, the Government say quite simply that that would impose undue and unnecessary restrictions on the ability of the Scottish Assembly to fulfil the functions devolved to it. I hope, therefore, that the House will agree that we should not accept these Lords amendments.
I have listened with great interest to the whole of this debate. I must admit that when I came to reply to it, I was tempted to rest my case on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I thought that he put the whole case precisely and succinctly. However, I felt that I had an obligation to the House to try to reply to the Opposition's arguments.
Perhaps I may say, finally, that it is a little sad to see the hon. Member for Ayr popping up continually to oppose the Government in these devolution debates. I remember how, when we

started these debates on devolution—it seems a very long time ago now—he was a staunch supporter of it. He was with us in all that we sought to do in order to devolve power to the people of Scotland.

Mr. William Ross: That is because I had his election addresses.

Mr. Ewing: I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is here to back me up in what I say. It is sad to see someone shift his position in the way in which the hon. Member for Ayr has. I know the considerations that have to be made. I am not saying that I have made them, but I know the considerations that the hon. Member has to make, especially at the present time. However, it is a sad sight.

Mr. Younger: I am sure that the Minister wants to be fair. He will not have forgotten that his right hon. Friend the Minister of State was a diehard opponent of devolution and is in print as being so—as was the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross).

Mr. Ewing: I knew that the hon. Member for Ayr would make that point when I was teasing him about the way in which he had shifted his position. I took the trouble last night to look out the report of the special conference, some three years ago, of the Scottish Council of the Labour Party, and I read my right hon. Friend's speech at that conference. It is nothing like what the hon. Member for Ayr suggests. It was a speech in favour of devolution, and not against it.
We have seen tonight the Tory Party's last dying attempt to frustrate, if only in some minor form, the devolution proposals which will be put to the people of Scotland. I ask the House to make sure that that last dying attempt fails and to reject the Lords amendments.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 268.

Division No. 312]
AYES
[6.39 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Bates, Alf


Anderson, Donald
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bean, R. E.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bain, Mrs Margaret
Beith, A. J.


Ashley, Jack
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood


Ashton, Joe
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)




c[...] I, Sydney
Gould, Bryan
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Graham, Ted
Morton, George


Boardman, H.
Grant, John (Islington C)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Grocott, Bruce
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hardy, Peter
Newens, Stanley


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Noble, Mike


Bradley, Tom
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Oakes, Gordon


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Ogden, Eric


Buchan, Norman
Hayman, Mrs Helene
O'Halloran, Michael


Buchanan, Richard
Heffer, Eric S.
Orbach, Maurice


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Henderson, Douglas
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Hooley, Frank
Ovenden, John


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hooson, Emlyn
Padley, Walter


Campbell, Ian
Horam, John
Palmer, Arthur


Canavan, Dennis
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Pardoe, John


Cant, R. B.
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Park, George


Carmichael, Neil
Huckfield, Les
Parker, John


Carter, Ray
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Parry, Robert


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pavitt, Laurie


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pendry, Tom


Clemitson, Ivor
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Penhaligon, David


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hunter, Adam
Perry, Ernest


Cohen, Stanley
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Prescott, John


Coleman, Donald
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Price, William (Rugby)


Concannon, Rt Hon John
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Radice, Giles


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Janner, Greville
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Corbett, Robin
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Reid, George


Cowans, Harry
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Richardson, Miss Jo


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Crawford, Douglas
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Cronin, John
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Davidson, Arthur
Judd, Frank
Rooker, J. W.


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Roper, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Kelley, Richard
Rose, Paul B.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Russell
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kilfedder, James
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Deakins, Eric
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kinnock, Neil
Ryman, John


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Lambie David
Sandelson, Neville


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lamborn, Harry
Sedgemore, Brian


Dempsey, James
Lomond, James
Selby, Harry


Dewar, Donald
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Sever, John


Doig, Peter
Lee, John
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Dormand, J. D.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Dunn, James A.
Litterick, Tom
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dunnett, Jack
Loyden, Eddie
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Luard, Evan
Silverman, Jul-us


Eadie, Alex
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Skinner, Dennis


Edge, Geoff
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McCartney, Hugh
Snape, Peter


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
MacCormick, Iain
Spearing, Nigel


English, Michael
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Spriggs, Leslie


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McElhone, Frank
Stallard, A. W.


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Evans, John (Newton)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stoddart, David


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Stott, Roger


Faulds, Andrew
Maclennan, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Madden, Max
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Flannery, Martin
Magee, Bryan
Swain, Thomas


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Ford, Ben
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Forrester, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thompson, George


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Meacher, Michael
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Freud, Clement
Mikardo, Ian
Tierney, Sydney


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tilley, John


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Tomlinson, John


George, Bruce
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Tomney, Frank


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Torney, Tom


Ginsburg, David
Molloy, William
Tuck, Raphael


Golding, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Urwin, T. W.







Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Wellbeloved, James
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Welsh, Andrew
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
White, Frank R (Bury)
Woodall, Alec


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
White, James (Pollok)
Woof, Robert


Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Whitlock, William
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Ward, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd
Young, David (Bolton E)


Walkins, David
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick



Watkinson, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Horncn'ch)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Watt, Hamish
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Weetch, Ken
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Mr. James Tinn.


Weitzman, David
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Aitken, Jonathan
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Alison, Michael
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Ian


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Forman, Nigel
Loveridge, John


Arnold, Tom
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Luce, Richard


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fox, Marcus
McCrindle, Robert


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Macfarlane, Neil


Awdry, Daniel
Fry, Peter
MacGregor, John


Baker, Kenneth
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Banks, Robert
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Bell, Ronald
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Bendall, Vivian
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Madel, David


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Glyn, Dr Alan
Marten, Neil


Benyon, W.
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mates, Michael


Berry, Hon Anthony
Goodhart, Philip
Mather, Carol


Biffen, John
Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Angus


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodlad, Alastair
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Blaker, Peter
Gorst, John
Mawby, Ray


Body, Richard
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mayhew, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Griffiths, Eldon
Miscampbell, Norman


Brittan, Leon
Grist, Ian
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Moate, Roger


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
Molyneaux, James


Brotherton, Michael
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Fergus


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hannam, John
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Buck, Antony
Haselhurst, Alan
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Budgen, Nick
Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bulmer, Esmond
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Neave, Airey


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hawkins, Paul
Nelson, Anthony


Carlisle, Mark
Hayhoe, Barney
Neubert, Michael


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Newton, Tony


Channon, Paul
Heseltine, Michael
Normanton, Tom


Churchill, W. S.
Hicks, Robert
Nott, John


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Higgins, Terence L.
Onslow, Cranley


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hodqson, Robin
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Holland, Philip
Osborn, John


Clegg, Walter
Hordern, Peter
Page, John (Harrow West)


Cockcroft, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, Richard (Wokington)


Cope, John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Parkinson, Cecil


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Come, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Percival, Ian


Co-lain, A. P.
Hurd, Douglas
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pink, R. Bonner


Critchley, Julian
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Crouch. David
James, David
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Crowder, F. P
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Johnson Smith, G (E Grinstead)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Raison, Timothy


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Jopling, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Drayson, Burnaby
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Durant, Tony
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Dykes, Hugh
Kimball, Marcus
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rhodes James, R.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Elliott, Sir William
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Emery, Peter
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ridsdale, Julian


Eyre, Reginald
Knox, David
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lamont, Norman
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Fairgrieve, Russell
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Farr, John
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fell, Anthony
Lawrence, Ivan
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lawson, Nigel
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)







Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Viggers, Peter


Royle, Sir Anthony
Sproat, Iain
Wakeham, John


Sainsbury, Tim
Stainton, Keith
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Scott, Nicholas
Stanley, John
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Scott-Hopkins, James
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Walters, Dennis


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Warren, Kenneth


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Stokes, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Stradling Thomas, J.
Wells, John


Shepherd, Colin
Tapsell, Peter
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Shersby, Michael
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Whitney, Raymond


Silvester, Fred
Taylor, Teddy (Carthcart)
Wiggins, Jerry


Sims, Roger
Tebbit, Norman
Winterton, Nicholas


Sinclair, Sir George
Temple-Morris, Peter
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Younger, Hon George


Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)



Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Townsend, Cyril D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Speed, Keith
Trotter, Neville
Sir George Young and


Spence, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments nos. 2 and 3 disagreed to.

The Lords do not insist on their first amendment in page 30, line 8, and their amendment in line 2 of the Title, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendments in lieu thereof—

New Clause A

VOTING OF SCOTTISH MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 30, line 8, at end insert new Clause A—
A.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, if, following the first meeting of the Scottish Assembly, a Bill to which this section applies has been passed by the House of Commons but there would not hate been a majority in support of the Bill if there had been excluded from the members who voted in the division of that House on the question that the Bill be read the second time all those representing parliamentary constituencies in Scotland, that Bill shall be deemed not to have been read the second time unless after the next fourteen days on which that House has sat after the division took place that House confirms its decision that the Bill be read the second time.

(2) Subsection (I) of this section shall not come into operation unless it has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.

(3) This section applies to any Bill which does not relate to or concern Scotland or any part of Scotland but would, if it had related to or concerned Scotland, have been within the legislative competence of the Assembly."

Lords amendment: No. 5, in the Title, line 2, after "Scotland" insert:
and in the procedure of Parliament".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Lords amendment no. 4.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
No doubt right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House will regard this debate with something of a sense of déjà vu. We debated the issue as recently as 17th July. At that time the House rejected by 288 votes to 282 the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) to the new clause from the House of Lords.
By the casting vote of Mr. Speaker the new clause, as unamended, was rejected by the House. The clause which the Lords have sent back incorporates the two main amendments proposed by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire. That comes as no surprise. The Front Bench Opposition amendments were apparently readily accepted by the Lords. The proposition is that a second vote should take place at Second Reading instead of at Third Reading and that the main condition precedent should be narrowed so that it applies only to Bills which are within the legislative competence of the Assembly if they concern Scotland.
When we debated the matter previously I made clear on the Government's behalf that we opposed the proposition in principle. I suggest that it was unrealistic as a practical proposition. In the short time that has elapsed I have not been persuaded that either of those views were wrong. I shall argue that proposition forcibly again today. I shall oppose it on grounds of principle and impracticality.
I hope that other hon. Members will have had time to reflect that this proposal is not sensible and that it should not be inserted in the Bill—for all sorts of reasons to do with the way in which


Parliament is run and the way in which we should handle legislation post-devolution.
I turn to the issue of principle. I explained on the last occasion that we debated this subject why the Government do not accept that there is a case in principle for either "in and out" voting or the somewhat half-hearted and perhaps even half-baked compromise in the present new clause.
Parliament will remain sovereign and able to legislate on anything for the United Kingdom as a whole or for any part of it, irrespective of the devolution of certain powers to the Assembly. Even in devolved areas, in addition to its inherent power to legislate, Parliament will directly control the use of the Government's reserve powers of override. Even in matters which do not formally or directly touch Scotland, legislation for England and Wales—which contains nearly 90 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom—is bound to have repercussions for the remaining 10 per cent. of the population in a way that does not apply to the same degree in the reverse direction. The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) made that point clearly on the previous occasion.

Mr. Raison: I do not understand the Minister's argument. If, for example, it is decided by Parliament in England that there must be comprehensive education, does the Minister say that it necessarily follows that there must be comprehensive education in Scotland? If that is what he is saying it makes nonsense of devolution.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Member must not put up Aunt Sallies, ascribe them to me and then knock them down. I was describing a wider proposition. Members of his party who represent Scottish constituencies know what I mean.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: No, we do not.

Mr. Smith: I am not surprised, because the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) has shown his total opposition to devolution in any shape or form. I am glad that he has turned out to listen to my explanation.
I am not trying to make a partisan point or to argue a case which is based on

party politics. I am comforted by some research into a book called "Inside Right" written by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), who is a member of the Shadow Cabinet. In the chapter on the constitution, on page 220, it is stated that
To give Scotland by devolution what was in effect, say, a federal system without imposing federalism elsewhere seems to me to be quite feasible.
No doubt that will be of great interest to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, in view of the recent speech that he made. The same paragraph in that chapter reads:
the objection that Scottish MPs would have a vote on, say, housing and education in England while English MPs (and also Scottish MPs) would have no control over those subjects in Scotland seems legalistic. Whatever happens in England will have a great influence on what is done in Scotland, since great disparities between England and the rest would not be tolerated in the devolved areas. It is not therefore unreasonable that the Scots should be allowed some influence on decisions made for England. That surely would not be too high a price to pay for the maintenance of the Union.
It is most important that Conservative Members should know the views of the right hon. Gentleman. We have here the nub of the argument. In-and-out voting and the apology for it that we are considering under this clause are divisive. That is one of the reasons why the amendment seems to have the support of the SNP. That is something on which the Conservatives ought to reflect.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. William Benyon: I can see that if there is a financial aspect to what we do in England that could conceivably affect what happens in Scotland. But why should it possibly have any effect on the point just raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison)—comprehensive education—where, if the expenditure is the same, there would be no effect on Scotland?

Mr. Smith: There may well be different schemes for the organisation of education as between Scotland and England. But there are many other matters where the pattern of spending policy which is followed for 90 per cent. of the United Kingdom is bound to have some effect on the rest, albeit that it is controlled by a devolved Assembly. That is such an obvious point, that I do not put it


forward with any claim of originality. It is one that I was pleased to read in an important book by an important and thoughtful Member of the Opposition.

Mr. George Cunningham: My right hon. Friend does not agree with the rest of the book. Why does he agree with that bit?

Mr. Smith: It is quite common for us to read propositions and agre with some parts of them while disagreeing with others. That is something that my hon. Friend might even occasionally do himself.
I accept that not everyone shares this view of the matter. There are others in the Conservative Party who hold a different view, and there are obviously some of my hon. Friends who take a different view from me. But even those who do not share my view on the matter of principle should pause to consider whether we should write this ill-considered scheme into the Bill. Hon. Members should carefully reflect upon the practical considerations.
Let me draw the attention of the House to the main condition precedent, that is, the requirement that there will be a second vote after a gap of 14 days. Bills subjected to this procedure would be those that did not concern Scotland but which, if they did, would be within the legislative competence of the Assembly. I do not know whether that means that every provision in a Bill has to relate to devolved matters, or whether one minor provision would bring the Bill within the net. Perhaps those who support the amendment will explain that.
I believe that we are faced with a very unwieldy procedure. It would be open to a Government to write small provisions into a Bill in order that it could escape the test. There is also the very serious problem to which I drew attention before, namely, who is to decide whether, in a particular case, the special procedure is to apply? Apparently that will be Mr. Speaker. That amounts, in effect, to trying to reach a decision on the vires of Scottish Assembly legislation in the absence of any advantages which the Judicial Committee has for deciding such a proposition. Therefore, on what might be even a small provision Mr. Speaker would be required to make a difficult and sensitive decision which might have consequences that were not foreseen.
We have heard a good deal about the 14-day period, but little justification of the reason for such a gap. It might be longer than 14 days, because the amendment concentrates on 14 sitting days, but that is a minor matter. The arrangement seems to put Scottish Members of Parliament into a peculiar situation. It has been described as a cooling-off period, a sin bin, and various other things, and evidently there is to be special concentration during the period required for reflection upon the matter by Scottish Members in order to see whether they will change their minds. That almost implies that they would vote in some hotheaded way on the first occasion and that in the intervening period somehow they would reach another conclusion.
Surely Scottish MPs, given that it is conceded that they are entitled to vote on all matters coming before the House—because it is no part of this proposition that they should not be—can be assumed to exercise their votes on the first occasion, as on the second occasion, in as considered, careful and responsible way as any other Member of Parliament.
I think that the proposal is a bit of a gimmick. In another place, nearly every Member said that he did not think much of the clause but felt it necessary to draw the matter to the attention of the House of Commons and send it back here for further consideration. It had very few friends, because no one actually endorsed the proposal. I believe that that, too, was the tone of the debate in this House on 17th July. The proposal is ill-conceived in principle. It would be capricious in its application. We should not seek to change long established procedures almost by a sidewind in a Bill of this kind.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I do not accept the argument that the Minister has put forward. Will he go so far as to admit that we are faced with one of the most serious difficulties arising from the whole Bill? Will he offer some solution to the problem which, whatever views we hold, we must admit exists?

Mr. Smith: The right hon. Lady well knows that we are discussing one particular amendment and whether we can improve the situation for the House of Commons post-devolution. The so-called problem is greatly exaggerated. I accept however, that there are other views


on that matter. I am trying to concentrate on the practical issue. This is not a debate about the principle, but about whether we amend the Bill. The amendment provides a foolish way of making a change. The proposal is not beneficial for the House or its procedures. It is on that practical ground that I base my argument. We should avoid approaching the issue in a narrow and partisan way. We have to be careful about our procedures. This is the wrong way to change them, and we would regret doing it.

Mr. Francis Pym: I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's arguments against the amendment in principle. He spoke of introducing some kind of in and out system, but the amendment does not do that. He talked about the override powers and the sovereignty of Parliament but this amendment does not bear on the override powers. It may be possible to arrange an Assembly in Scotland without comparable Assemblies in other parts of the United Kingdom and without affecting the unity of the United Kingdom, but not under this Bill. Therefore, I disagree with him on all those points.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he thought the amendment would result in excessive divisiveness. He said that in essence it was divisive, and later he referred to it as a gimmick. I believe that it will contribute to reducing, although perhaps only to a slight degree, the divisiveness that is inherent in the Bill. He said that he thought that it was unwieldly, whereas I think that it is extraordinarily simple.
We did not table an amendment last time on the question of the 14 days. I agree that this is a matter that could be argued about, but 14 days seemed to us a reasonable time and we therefore took that proposal at its face value when it came from the other place. I am certain, however, that the House is right to return to the issue because sooner or later it will prove fatal to the satisfactory working of devolution as proposed.
We have argued for many months about the many flaws that we feel are in the scheme, but we believe that this flaw is one of the worst. I am glad that we have returned to the matter, because it makes the House of Commons face the reality of what we are doing, which, as

the Bill stands, is to put Members of Parliament representing Scottish seats in something of a privileged position, while disadvantaging the rest of us.
There is no doubt that it would be possible for Members representing Scottish seats to vote on matters affecting England which no other Member can vote for in respect of Scotland, and that will apply even with this amendment. It does not supply a solution to that difficulty. I do not see how it can supply a solution to the insoluble. However, in a gentle and reasonable way it gives the House a chance to have second thoughts, to have time for reflection, on a Bill not relating to Scotland, which has been passed at Second Reading but would not have been pasesd but for the vote of Scottish Members of Parliament.
At present, and for many years past, all hon. Members of this House have been entitled to vote on all issues, with the result that on occasions a policy has been imposed by this House on one part of the United Kingdom, be it Scotland, England, or wherever, which that part of the United Kingdom did not want. But that position and that result have proved acceptable throughout the United Kingdom and have been accepted because they apply throughout the United Kingdom. All parts of the kindom are treated exactly the same. It is how this parliamentary system has worked for a very long time in this unitary State.
Under the Bill, that is to be altered. The Government like to pretend otherwise. They studiously neglect even to acknowledge the existence of this change or to explain it and its significance either to the people of Scotland or to the rest of the people of the United Kingdom. The silence of Ministers throughout the country on this important business is a very remarkable fact.
From what the right hon. Gentleman said, I realise that he does not like this amendment. I think that one reason why he does not like it is that it exposes what the Government have sought to keep secret. It exposes an arrangement that cannot for long remain acceptable to the other parts of the United Kingdom.
The Long Title of the Bill was designed, of course, by the Government. It precluded any amendment at all on this subject, until the Lords gave us this opportunity. The Long Title was drawn


deliberately—I make no complaint about this, but it must have been so drawn—to deny the possibility of making a change of this kind.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, and, for that matter, all hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies, whether they think that it is likely to prove acceptable that their colleagues representing other parts of the United Kingdom can have their preferences and their policies relating to their part of the United Kingdom overturned or overruled by the votes of Scottish Members of Parliament, when no Member of this House can vote on those same issues for Scotland.
How many hon. Members—apart from the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and perhaps one or two others—have explained this aspect of the Bill to the people of Scotland? Certainly I and some of my hon. Friends have tried to do so, and I know that some others have. But there has been no serious attempt to explain this flaw to the people of Scotland. The Government, certainly, have made no effort to do so; indeed, the very opposite. I do not think that either the press or the media in Scotland have given it enough attention.
To this extent, we have the argument that when the referendum campaign comes—if it does, and that seems quite likely—a false prospectus will be being put to the people of Scotland, or at any rate a lack of profound understanding of what is involved.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I think that I understand perfectly the force of my right hon. Friend's argument about the weakness of the Bill. However, will he be going on to explain, as I hope he will, to those innocents abroad such as myself, exactly how the amendment before us would help to resolve this position? I am afraid that it is not clear to me.

Mr. Pym: As I have said, it does not resolve this position. Nothing can resolve it because the data of the problems as presented in the Bill are incompatible. They conflict. There is no solution. But what the amendment does is, in a slight degree, to bear up on it, to the extent that if a Bill not affecting Scotland in the devolved areas is voted in a particular way but would not have been voted in that way but for the vote of Scottish Members

of Parliament, there is this time for reflection—to use the right hon. Gentleman's own words—when there is a second vote when hon. Members can return and vote again. If they decide to vote in the same way, so be it.
The right hon. Gentleman frowns. Does he not think that it is a good idea that if a vote has had that effect it would be very reasonable for hon. Members to pause and reflect upon what they are actually doing, which is causing something to be decided for one part of the United Kingdom which this House could not decide for another part of the United Kingdom?

Mr. George Cunningham: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are many people north of the border who do not know at present that the situation will be that their representatives will have a say on purely English matters after devolution and that the value of this amendment is that in the referendum campaign the passing of the amendment will bring that point home a little better than would otherwise be the case?

Mr. Pym: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman is right. It is really worrying that most of the people of Scotland do not understand this.

Mr. John Smith: They do understand.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Pym: The right hon. Gentleman says that they do understand. From all my visits to Scotland, I am sure that they do not. I do not pretend to be a Scot, but I do not accept that for one moment.
The amendment does not seek to interfere in any way with the voting rights of any Member of this House. All can continue to vote on all issues. But in the circumstances envisaged here, which I have just described, the amendment provides a pause for second thoughts. It may very well put strains on hon. Members during those 14 days. There may well be tensions and stresses pulling in opposite directions on hon. Members during the interval and between the two votes. But that is precisely what the interval is for.
If, after reflection, and after judging the matter, the House decides that it will confirm what it voted upon earlier in the way that it voted earlier, so be it. But


it is just possible that on second thoughts, hon. Members might decide that it was not absolutely reasonable that their vote should have that effect on some other part of the United Kingdom in which they were not directly interested.
There is then the question of deciding about whether a Bill applies to Scotland. In my view, it will be no more difficult for this House to decide which Bills do not apply to Scotland than it will be for the Assembly to decide what is within its competence. That is something which the Government have claimed all along has been carefully and clearly drawn.
Each United Kingdom Bill relating to matters in a devolved area will have to state that it does not apply to Scotland, otherwise it will be assumed automatically that it does apply and is being put through this House regardless of the Scotland Act. Already now we have the procedure whereby a United Kingdom Bill states whether it applies to Scotland. I see no difficulty in extending this process in the new circumstances.
The decisions that are required are these: first, does the Bill apply to Scotland? Already now we have a procedure for deciding that matter. Secondly, is it in a devolved area? That would be no more a matter of debate here than would the same issue be in the Assembly. So already we have procedures in this House for deciding whether a Bill applies to Scotland. We have other procedures for deciding such matters as hybridity. I see no difficulty in determining the question whether a Bill does or does not apply to Scotland.

Mr. John Smith: Perhaps I may draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that when it is decided by Mr. Speaker whether a Bill applies to Scotland and, therefore, can be sent to the Scottish Grand Committee or a Scottish Standing Committee, that is always conditional upon the fact that the Opposition can always block that happening by 12 hon. Members rising in their place, so it must have consent before it is operated. That is quite a big difference.

Mr. Pym: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right about that. All that I am saying is that we already have a procedure for deciding matters of that kind

and other matters in relation to Bills. I do not see that the difficulty that he mentioned in his opening remarks is as real as all that, and I certainly do not think that it is impossible for this House to arrive at a conclusion as to whether a Bill referred to in this amendment applies to Scotland.
I ought to add that the amendment as it now appears does not apply to all non-Scottish Bills but only to those which deal with matters which in Scotland are devolved to the Assembly and governed by the Assembly. Thus, the amendment, if accepted, would not apply to any Bill that dealt with a matter in the rest of the United Kingdom that was not devolved to Scotland. In other words, it is a narrower amendment than when we originally saw it.
Therefore, despite the Government's anxiety about the matter, I hope that this proposed change in our procedure will commend itself to the House this evening. I believe that it will help at least to mitigate one of the greatest weaknesses in the Bill. As the Bill stands tonight, it will prove to be divisive. For that reason it cannot endure. This is a modest contribution towards introducing a simple procedure that will allow time for second thoughts. In the circumstances that I have described—strain between different parts of the United Kingdom because of the different voting rights of Members of Parliament in this House—the amendment ought to be accepted. It will help to alleviate the problems which will otherwise arise. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. and hon. Friends, and other hon. Members, will support it.

Mr. Dalyell: Criticisms were made of the amendment that it is capricious, that it changes the procedures of the House and that it creates first-class and second-class Members of the House of Commons. That is the general criticism. The first two criticisms I ascribe to the Minister of State, but not the last one.
It is not the amendment that will lead to first-class and second-class Members, nor it is the amendment that will, of itself, lead to a change of procedures of the House. Rather it is the Government's proposals in the Bill, sooner rather than later, that will lead to different categories of Members and change the procedures of this House.
The truth is that the clock is being moved backwards for the first time since the great Reform Bill of 1832, and the principle is being reintroduced of decision-making in Parliament by those who have literally no responsibility for certain areas —in this case, education and housing—in which they are making those decisions for part of the State.
Supposing that there is an Assembly in Edinburgh, what better right does the Member for West Lothian have to cast what might possibly be a decisive vote on, for example, pay beds or comprehensive schools in England than the representative of Old Sarum had pre-1832? It is totally different from the current situation, in that there will be two different Governments involved, not one single Government as at present—so different, in fact, that one Minister in one Government, as we learnt last Thursday, stumbling on an amazing new fact, can actually sue another Minister of another Government in a court of law. That is the situation that can happen, and, given the political circumstances, it is not so wild a surmise that it could happen.
The immediate issue before us is relatively simple at one level. Do we try to conceal this geological flaw in the very structure of the Bill, or do we do our best to reveal it to the electors before they cast their votes in a referendum? Apart from any other consideration, within a short time of an Assembly's being set up in Edinburgh, whether the Government or pro-devolutionists like it or not, the problem of Scots MPs deciding matters for England for which they have no responsibility in their own constituencies is certain to rear its head. So there is nothing in terms of good government to be gained by trying to sweep under the carpet until the referendum is over the design fault in the structure of the Bill.
People will have to understand that the first time a controversial measure affecting England is carried by non-English votes, there will be a constitutional crisis in these islands. It is healthier that they understand this before and not after the referendum takes place.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: My hon. Friend said that this would be the first time that this has happened. Does he not recognise that under the old Stormont arrange-

ment in Northern Ireland such a situation existed for nearly 50 years?

Mr. George Cunningham: We did not like it.

Mr. Fowler: I agree that many of us did not like it, but we accepted it for nearly 50 years in this House. There may have been only 12 Members from Northern Ireland, but they supported only one party.

Mr. Dalyell: We accepted that situation until it came to the crunch. I remember when the crunch arrived. Desmond Donnelly and Woodrow Wyatt were going to vote another way on steel nationalisation, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), then Prime Minister, had all sorts of things to say about the presence of Irish Members.
The question asked by the hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) is very relevant. This amendment is no kind of a solution. It is no use pretending that it is a solution to the so-called West Lothian question. As the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said, there is no solution to the insoluble; if there had been it would have been discovered long ago. But at least this amendment does something in the direction of pinning a constitutional price tag on the neck of the Assembly, and it is for that reason, as a warning signal to the electors of Scotland during the referendum campaign, that I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for it.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: To adopt this amendment would be to put a price tag not so much on the Scottish Assembly as on the United Kingdom Parliament. If the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) thinks that by supporting the amendment we shall make the Assembly operate any differently, he is quite wrong. Like him, I recognise the problem. It is bound to be the problem of any scheme of devolution within the United Kingdom. I certainly do not sweep it under the carpet. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said, it is virtually insoluble looked at in terms of principle. What we now have to do, given the problem and that the majority of hon. Members support devolution, is to decide whether, in trying to


deal with the problem in the way proposed here, we shall be making devolution better or worse.
I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) that the amendment recognises the problem. We all recognise the problem, and have done for a long time. But it does not necessarily make sense to write into the Bill, for the purposes of the referendum, something that will remain in the legislation, hanging around the neck of this Parliament for years to come.
If we are to solve the problem, let us do so in a proper way. That way is through an in-and-out system. It is the only way in which we shall be able to deal with the situation. It does not make sense in practical terms that the amendment goes half-way towards the in-and-out system. If we want the in-and-out system, let us have it; if we do not want it, I believe that the Bill should stand as it is, and that in our practices in this House we shall be able to cope with the problem. The amendment tries to go to an in-and-out system by stealth instead of tackling the problem head on. To that extent, it does not make sense.
It is not without significance that the amendment is supported by the Scottish National Party. I believe that that is so because the SNP sees in the amendment not something that affects the Assembly one way or another but something that affects this House. It sees the amendment as a time bomb under the House of Commons. For that reason alone, we should reject it.

Mr. Norman Buchan: As so often, I agree with a good deal of what the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said. We all recognise that the problem is logically insoluble. But it does not necessarily follow that the system will not work. Many things are insoluble in logic but work in practice. We have to decide whether the amendment helps it to work in practice or not.
The argument has not been helped by the exaggeration of the problem. It is certainty one of the great problems of the Bill, and it is right that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who has argued so valiantly,

should argue as he does, but I do not think that in isolation it is an insuperable problem. For example, there are the problems of non-financial responsibility and of being unable to get the popular will on the question of devolution or independence. Thus, the three bulwarks are not there in the Bill to make it work. But we must now ask ourselves whether this one remaining pillar of the West Lothian question will be helped by the amendment. My hon. Friend was right to emphasise this aspect.
Equally, those who have tried to minimise the problem are guilty of great disservice. I read the article in the Glasgow Herald by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), and I do not think that it began to approach the depths of the problem. It is not sufficient to say that there will be no difference between this situation and the old Stormont situation. There is a very big difference, once characterised by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) as the de minimis problem in that there were only 12 Members from Northern Ireland.
There was another aspect—the political connection of Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom for which there was no basic fissiparous force in the majority community. This may not necessarily be the position which will apply in relation to Scotland. The legislative powers of Stormont are not analogous to the legislative powers that we are giving to the Assembly. But the big difference, surely, is that what we are to have here is a situation in which Scottish Members can affect English legislation but English Members will not be able to affect Scottish legislation. Some hon. Members have said that this is not a basic problem. I resent that strongly, because it is a basic problem. My fear is that if we continually underplay it, we shall start the Assembly under such illusions that it will crack. We must face this problem.
7.30 p.m.
The second problem which arises is that in a sense the Scottish Members in this Parliament will no longer be properly representative of or responsible for those areas of legislation in this Parliament which are already devolved to Scotland. In the event of an election, we shall not be returned to this House to legislate, for example, on questions of


education. That will be a matter for the Assemblymen of Scotland. In a sense, therefore, it is also cutting across the representative and responsible nature of the Member of Parliament to his electorate. I shall not be saying to my electorate in West Renfrew "Return me to Westminster so that I can vote in relation to English education."

Mr. George Cunningham: Or Scottish education.

Mr. Buchan: Or Scottish education, as my hon. Friend points out. If we try to say that it is a simple problem, and try to dismiss the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian, I believe that it is as dangerous as magnifying the problem. There is only one way to solve the problem, and that is through the process of a period of time, given the will in the Assembly that it will not crack into separation, and given the will in this House to allow a modus vivendi to develop. It is against this question of a modus vivendi developing over a period of time that we have to look at the amendment. I can think of nothing more calculated to crack the modus vivendi, or to prevent a modus vivendi from developing, than to have this amendment.

Mr. George Cunningham: What motive can there be?

Mr. Buchan: I have already said this. I do not believe that the problem is soluble in logic. I have no doubts about that at all. Unless we live with it and work with it, and allow Scottish Members to vote in this House, over a period of time, I do not think that there is another solution. That is why I reject the in-and-out solution. If we are to have a rational, logical solution, the federal solution is the rational and logical solution.

Mr. George Cunningham: Right. Start again.

Mr. Buchan: The problem with the federal solution is that we cannot have equality in relation to Scotland and England. We somehow have to allow a situation to work in which Scottish Members here will be voting on English problems. Do not let us sweep it under the carpet. It will cause problems. By accepting this amendment, however, we should be writing in from the beginning that we must make people aware of this problem. Gov-

ernments will know it and draw attention to it. Members will know it and draw attention to it. This will become the locus of the very conflict itself, instead of a means of solving the conflict. I cannot think of anything better to prevent a modus vivendi developing at all than to have the provision set out in the amendment written in from the beginning. Of course, it will be deployed by parties. Of course, it will be deployed by Governments. Of course, Governments will ask "How do we get round the hon. Member for Tiverton?" They will say "We shall have a clause in here to cover a non-devolved situation". We all know this. This is the nature of the beast. This is the nature of the life that we live here. This amendment is certainly no solution to the problem.
What is necessary is for hon. Members who support the Bill, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden and others, to insist on making it clear that this problem will exist, that we shall have conflict, but that that of itself will not be allowed to crack the Assembly. This is the only way for it. I have no logical solution to put forward, because there is none. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian was right.
I am quite sure that to adopt an amendment which will make this problem the focus of all argument and conflict in the House can only exacerbate the position. I hope that hon. Members on each side of the House will try to apply their reason to this problem. I hope that they will try to do a little teaching throughout the referendum campaign. For heaven's sake, let us not bring this amendment into legislation in order to make it easy in the referendum campaign, because we shall then have to live with it long after. It will require a lot of reason, a lot of sense, a lot of understanding and a lot of teaching during the referendum campaign. The one weapon that we have left in our hands is to teach the Scottish people what we are doing before we embark on this adventure.

Mr. George Reid: The Minister of State said that he has a sense of déjàvu about the debate, but both he and the hon. Member for North Angus and Meatus (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) succeeded in injecting a little fresh venom into the proceedings by suggesting that SNP support


for the amendment was based primarily on the fact that it was divisive. My hon. Friends and I reject that charge. We support the amendment on the grounds of equity and principle, as we did with proportional representation, because we are concerned about an orderly and effective transfer of power to Scotland. We also support it because it is a chance—perhaps the last chance—to debate the central issue of the Scotland Bill.
The issue is simply that one cannot graft federalism on to a part of a unitary State. There has been a great deal of naivety from the Government Front Bench today in refusing to recognise the essential issue of the inter-relationship of the respective nations which make up the United Kingdom, and the fact that establishing a legislature in Scotland is boud to have consequences for the procedures of this House. I think that we should all be grateful to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for pursuing this matter with such percipience and persistence. He, like us, I think, has a similar view that between independence and status quo there is very little central option.
It has been claimed by Member after Member, in both this Chamber and in another place, that the problem is insoluble. That is not quite true in terms of logic because, if I am being fair to the Bench in front of me—to the solitary Liberal—it is possible to reach a logical solution through federalism. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has toyed with that in recent weeks. The trouble, as we know, is that there is no real will for devolution in England.
There is another logical way, and that is the way proposed by my own party—to accept that Britain is not a nation but a multinational State, and that the nations should resolve themselves into respective parliamentary units. That is perfectly logical, and the problem can be taken care of in that way.
If the amendment were to come back yet again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friends and I would not support it. We support it today on straightforward, pragmatic grounds. But we feel that it, is now equally important to get the Bill on the statute book, to get Royal Assent and to have the Assembly established.

Secondly, we do not pretend that this is the most effective way in which to deal with the problem. Putting Scots Members in a sin bin for 14 days is not really very effective.
There is, of course, another way out, which has been advanced by my hon. Friends in times past. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns is perfectly correct. The SNP has argued in this House in time past that there should be an in-and-out system, that there should be a self-denying ordinance by Members of the House, so that Scots simply would not vote on matters of exclusive English concern, and vice versa in terms of Wales or Northern Ireland. That is a logical way of dealing with the problem. The danger there, of course, is that then probably no United Kingdom Government could be formed by the Labour Party. Indeed, in 1951, in the case of the Conservatives, there was a similar example, where they depended on the votes of Northern Ireland. That is the problem about this being a multinational State.
We support the amendment because we have no desire on our Bench, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be beastly to the English. We think that in their own devolved areas of government they should get, in terms of policy, what they voted for, and likewise for the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom.
Behind this debate I think we see a sort of nascent English nationalism beginning to show through. There have been expressions of rage that the Scots could somehow determine matters of purely English concern. We have plenty of experience of that on this Bench and in Scotland. The Scots were outvoted by 10 to one in this place. Remember, for example, the guillotine on the Scotland and Wales Bill, with Scots from all parties voting by two to one in favour, but the guillotine failing on the votes of English Members. Remember that monster Strathclyde, being inflicted on Scotland by the votes of English Members. Remember areas being put into Glasgow district by English Members. Remember measures on housing and education—anathema to most Scots—forced through by English votes. We have plenty of experience of that particular problem.

Mr. Buchan: There is plenty of evidence of measures being forced upon the English people because of Scottish and Welsh votes. We are Members of one


House. One might as well say that certain measures have been forced through by red-headed Members of Parliament.

Mr. Reid: That reinforces my basic point, that people voting in the constituent nations of the United Kingdom should get the measures for which they voted at the polls, and should not have other measures affecting them inflicted on them from other parts of the kingdom.
As I said, SNP Members give their support to this Lords amendment, primarily to air what we believe to be the central constitutional issue which has dominated the whole Scotland Bill. Our own view is that the sooner this House again resolves itself into an English Parliament, and the sooner we have our own Parliament north of the border, the better, because in that way, and try as I might, I see the only solution to the West Lothian question.

Mr. William Ross: One should be careful about what one says in this House. The last time I spoke, on 17th July, I suggested that it might well be my last speech. But only yesterday I met Lord Muirshiel, the former Secretary of State for Scotland, and he reminded me that when I made my maiden speech he congratulated me on it and hoped that he would hear me again. He said that he never regretted any speech more than he regretted that one.
We are not really talking about devolution in this instance. Nothing about this amendment will affect devolution; it is the consequence of devolution. It was not one which was unknown to us. Some right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition seem to think that we concealed this from everyone. I have in my hands the first White Paper produced by the Government in June 1974, a Government of which I was a member. On page 20 there are two sections, (e) and (f), in paragraph 56, the first of which deals with the question:
is it acceptable to the people of England that while the Westminster Parliament would in general not be able to legislate for Scotland and Wales in matters of health, education, local government, etc., some 90 Scottish and Welsh MPs at Westminster would participate in legislation for England on these matters?
that I have been talking about.

Mr. Galbraith: In Scotland?

Mr. Ross: Yes, in Scotland. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we asked his

party to come and see us about this, but it did not come. It did not have a word to say.

Mr. Buchan: It had nothing to say.

Mr. Ross: No, it did not know what to say, because the Conservative Party was still stuck with a thing called "the Declaration of Perth". Even before we debated the White Paper, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said that the Conservative Party had a clear-cut policy for devolution and for a legislative Assembly. That was the cause of all the trouble, and that is why certain Conservative Members sit on the Back Benches instead of on the Front Bench. Some of them ought to be ashamed of themselves for the way in which they have conducted themselves over this period.

Mr. Iain Sproat: Deal with the amendment.

Mr. Ross: I am dealing with the amendment. It was said that majorities in other places, be it Wales, Scotland or England, accepted this because it applied to everyone. That is not true. For 50 years Members of Parliament from Stormont dealt with Bills which included the words "This Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland." There were eight Departments of Government in Northern Ireland, including certain aspects of national insurance and home affairs, yet Northern Ireland Members dealt with all the matters in this place, despite the fact that they had no implications in respect of Northern Ireland. At that time, no matter what anyone says, there was an automatic majority, but the position today is very different. However, from my first days in this House up to a few years ago there was an automatic Tory block vote from Northern Ireland. I know that one or two people used to be elected for the Republican Party, but they were elected on the basis that they would not come. Some of them did not come. I remember that one was in prison all the time.
The source of this amendment, the House of Lords, showed its willing acceptance of an amendment which only a short time ago was thrown out by this House. Had the majority of Scottish people been in favour of the Tory Party, I wonder whether the House of Lords


would have acted in the same way. Of course it would not.
7.45 p.m.
We do not vote in this place as Scots; we vote as members of parties, and we shall still do so after devolution. But for the first time the amendment suggests that we vote as Scots. If one looks at the party affiliations in this House, one sees that there are 41 Scottish members of the Labour Party and 30 others. That makes a majority of 11, exactly the same majority as the block Unionist vote, which never concerned right hon. Gentlemen all those years. Indeed, in 1951 it was that Unionist majority which created a Government for the Conservative Party.
With all due respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), he did not do anything about it when he was Prime Minister of the day. He accepted this fatal principle. Therefore, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) should not exaggerate. This is a fatuous amendment, which will not solve the problem. There are other ways of getting round it. In fact, there is a way that makes nonsense of the amendment. At the present time we have a system in respect of even English legislation going to a Committee for Second Reading.

Mr. Sproat: It then comes back here.

Mr. Ross: The amendment refers only to Second Reading. Let us suppose that there are some Scottish Members serving on that Committee.

Mr. George Cunningham: It comes back here for Second Reading.

Mr. Ross: It comes back here for a Second Reading that is subject to certain procedures, which are not the same in Scotland. There are all sorts of sillinesses within the amendment. What could be more fatuous than the idea of waiting for a fortnight and taking another vote?
I have always accepted that there were problems in this regard, but this is not the

way to solve them. The House of Lords is not the place to tell us how to run our business. We could do this at any time without legislation. We could do it on the basis of a sessional order. I remind hon. Members that we changed the composition of the Scottish Grand Committee. I always thought that Committees of this House reflected the composition of the House of Commons. If one looks it up —and it was the Tory Party which did it —one will discover that all Members of the Scottish Grand Committee have to be Members from Scottish constituencies. Mind you, it came to a point where the Conservative Party could hardly man the Committee, so it reduced the size of that Committee. I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) still suffers from what happened to him in regard to a particular Bill.

Really, will the House of Commons accept such a silly thing as this amendment? I am surprised that the SNP has fallen for this kind of thing. It is absolute nonsense. We know about the "in-and-out" business. In Scotland there used to be county and borough councils, and the boroughs used to send members for certain purposes. But they did not vote on other matters. There are other ways of solving this problem. This is not the way. No self-respecting House of Commons would accept this amendment from another place.

Mr. John Smith: The main point on which hon. Members have concentrated—and I am glad that they have—is that this is a practical matter. We have had many debates about this, it is whether—

It being three hours after the commencement of the Proceedings, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [4th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 276.

Division No. 313]
AYES
[7.49 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward


Anderson, Donald
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bates, Alf
Boardman, H.


Ashley, Jack
Bean, R. E.
Booth, Rt Hon Albert


Ashton, Joe
Beith, A. J.
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)




Bradley, Tom
Howells, Geraint(Cardigan)
Pendry, Tom


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Perry, Ernest


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Huckfield, Les
Prescott, John


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Rt Hon C.(Anglesey)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Buchanan, Richard
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Price, William (Rugby)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Radice, Giles


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hunter, Adam
Richardson, Miss Jo


Campbell, Ian
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A.(Edge Hill)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Canavan, Dennis
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cant, R. B.
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Carmichael, Neil
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Carter, Ray
Janner, Greville
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cartwright, John
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Clemitson, Ivor
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rooker, J. W.


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
John, Brynmor
Roper, John


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rose, Paul B.


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, Waller (Derby S)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Concannon, Rt Hon John
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rowlands, Ted


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Ryman, John


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Dan(Burnley)
Sandelson, Neville


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Judd, Frank
Sedgemore, Brian


Crawshaw, Richard
Kelley, Richard
Selby, Harry


Cronin, John
Kerr, Russell
Sever, John


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Cryer, Bob
Kinnock, Neil
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Lambie. David
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Davidson, Arthur
Lamborn, Harry
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lamond, James
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Lee, John
Silverman, Julius


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Skinner, Dennis


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Snape, Peter


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Litterick, Tom
Spriggs, Leslie


Dempsey, James
Loyden, Eddie
Stallard, A. W.


Dewar, Donald
Luard, Evan
Steel, Rt Hon David


Doig, Peter
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Dormand, J. D.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stoddart, David


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Stott, Roger


Duffy, A. E. P.
McCartney, Hugh
Strang, Gavin


Dunn, James A.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Dunnett, Jack
McElhone, Frank
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Swain, Thomas


Eadie, Alex
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Edge, Geoff
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Maclennan, Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


English, Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Evans, John (Newton)
Madden, Max
Tiemey, Sydney


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Magee, Bryan
Tilley, John


Faulds, Andrew
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Tomlinson, John


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Marks, Kenneth
Tomney, Frank


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Torney, Tom


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tuck, Raphael


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Urwin, T. W.


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Meacher, Michael
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Ford, Ben
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Forrester, John
Mikardo, Ian
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Ward, Michael


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Mitchell, Ausitn (Grimsby)
Watkins, David


Freud, Clement
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Watkinson, John


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Molloy, William
Weetch, Ken


George, Bruce
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Weitzman, David


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Wellbeloved, James


Ginsburg, David
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Golding, John
Morton, George
White, James (Pollok)


Gould, Bryan
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Whitehead, Phillip


Gourlay, Harry
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Whitlock, William


Graham, Ted
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Grant, John (Islington C)
Newens, Stanley
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Grocott, Bruce
Noble, Mike
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hartford)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Ogden, Eric
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Hardy, Peter
O'Halloran, Michael
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Orbach, Maurice
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Woodall, Alec


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Ovenden,John
Woof, Robert


Hayman, Mrs Helena
Padley, Walter
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Heffer, Eric S.
Pardoe, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Hooley, Frank
Park, George



Hooson, Emlyn
Parker. John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Horam, John
Parry, Robert
Mr. Joseph Dean and


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. James Tinn.







NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Miscampbell, Norman


Alison, Michael
Garrett, W. E.(Wallsend)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Moate, Roger


Arnold, Tom
Glyn, Dr Alan
Molyneaux, James


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Monro, Hector


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Goodhart, Philip
Montgomery, Fergus


Awdry, Daniel
Goodhew, Victor
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Goodlad, Alastair
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Baker, Kenneth
Gorst, John
Morgan, Geraint


Banks, Robert
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Bell, Ronald
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bendall, Vivian
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Neave, Airey


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Grieve, Percy
Nelson, Anthony


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Griffiths, Eldon
Neubert, Michael


Benyon, W.
Grist, Ian
Newton, Tony


Biffen, John
Grylls, Michael
Normanton, Tom


Biggs-Davison, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nott, John


Blaker, Peter
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
Onslow, Cranley


Body, Richard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hampson, Dr Keith
Osborn, John


Bottomley, Peter
Hannam, John
Page, John (Harrow West)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Haselhurst, Alan
Page, Richard (Workington)


Brittan, Leon
Hastings, Stephen
Parkinson, Cecil


Brooke, Hon Peter
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Pattie, Geoffrey


Brotherton, Michael
Hawkins, Paul
Penhaligon, David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hayhoe, Barney
Percival, Ian


Bryan, Sir Paul
Henderson, Douglas
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Buck, Antony
Heseltine, Michael
Phipps, Dr Colin


Budgen, Nick
Higgins, Terence L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Bulmer, Esmond
Hodgson, Robin
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Holland, Philip
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Carlisle, Mark
Hordern, Peter
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Channon, Paul
Howell, David (Guildford)
Raison, Timothy


Churchill, W. S.
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rathbone, Tim


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hurd, Douglas
Reid, George


Clegg, Walter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Cockcroft, John
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
James, David
Rhodes James, R.


Cope, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cormack, Patrick
Johnson Smith, G (E Grinstead)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Corrie, John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Ridsdale, Julian


Costain, A. P.
Jopling, Michael
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Crawford, Douglas
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Critchley, Julian
Kershaw, Anthony
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Crouch, David
Kimbali, Marcus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Crowder, F. P.
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Dalyell, Tam
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Sainsbury, Tim


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lamont, Norman
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Drayson, Burnaby
Lawrence, Ivan
Shelton, William (Streatham)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lawson, Nigel
Shepherd, Colin


Durant, Tony
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shersby, Michael


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Silvester, Fred


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lloyd, Ian
Sims, Roger


Elliott, Sir William
Loveridge, John
Sinclair, Sir George


Emery, Peter
Luce, Richard
Skeet, T. H. H.


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McCrindle, Robert
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
MacGregor, John
Speed, Keith


Eyre, Reginald
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fairgrieve, Russell
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stainton, Keith


Farr, John
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forost)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fell, Anthony
Madel, David
Stanley, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Marten, Neil
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Mates, Michael
Stokes, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mather, Carol
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maude, Angus
Tapsell, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Teddy (Carthcart)


Fox, Marcus
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tebbit, Norman


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Mayhew, Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fry, Peter
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mills, Peter
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)







Thompson, George
Warren, Kenneth
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Townsend, Cyril D.
Watt, Hamish
Winterton, Nicholas


Trotter, Neville
Weatherill, Bernard
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wells, John
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Welsh, Andrew
Younger, Hon George


Viggers Peter
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William



Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Whitney, Raymond
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wakeham, John
Wiggin, Jerry
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Walters, Dennis

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business.

Clause 67

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY

Lords amendment: no. 6, page 33, line 16, leave out "with the necessary modifications" and insert "not"

Motion made, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment. — [Mr. Harry Ewing.]

Question put forthwith—

The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 286.

Division No. 314]
AYES
[8.06 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hayman, Mrs Helena


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whitsh)
Henderson, Douglas


Ashley, Jack
Davidson, Arthur
Hooley, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hooson, Emlyn


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Horam, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Deakins, Eric
Huckfield, Les


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Bates, Alt
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bean, R. E.
Dempsey, James
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Beith, A. J.
Dewar, Donald
Hunter, Adam


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Doig, Peter
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dormand, J. D.
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Oartford)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dunn, James A.
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Boardman, H.
Dunnett, Jack
Janner, Graville


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Eadie, Alex
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Edge, Geoff
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
John, Brynmor


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Bradley, Tom
English, Michael
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Evans, John (Newton)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Buchan, Norman
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Faulds, Andrew
Judd, Frank


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Kerr, Russell


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lambie, David


Campbell, Ian
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lamborn, Harry


Canavan, Dennis
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lamond, James


Carmichael, Neil
Ford, Ben
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Carter, Ray
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lee, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Cartwright, John
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Freud, Clement
Luard, Evan


Clemitson, Ivor
George, Bruce
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Cohen, Stanley
Ginsberg, David
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Coleman, Donald
Golding, John
McCartney, Hugh


Colquhoun Ms Maureen
Gould, Bryan
MacCormick, Iain


Concannon, Rt Hon John
Gourlay, Harry
McElhone, Frank


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Graham, Ted
McKay, Allen


Corbett, Robin
Grant, John (Islington C)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Cowans, Harry
Grocott, Bruce
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Crawford, Douglas
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Maclennan, Robert


Crawshaw, Richard
Hardy, Peter
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Cronin, John
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Madden, Max


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Magee, Bryan


Cryer, Bob
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mallalieu, J. P. W.




Marks, Kenneth
Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Tierney, Sydney


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Tilley, John


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Tomlinson, John


Meacher, Michael
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Tomney, Frank


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Roper, John
Torney, Tom


Mikardo, Ian
Rose, Paul B.
Tuck, Raphael


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Urwin, T. W.


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Rowlands, Ted
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Ryman, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Sandelson, Neville
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Sedgemore, Brian
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aboravon)
Selby, Harry
Ward, Michael


Morton, George
Sever, John
Watkins, David


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Shaw, Arnold (Iltord South)
Watt, Hamish


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Weetch, Ken


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Weitzman, David


Noble, Mike
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Welibeloved, James


Oakes, Gordon
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Welsh, Andrew


Ogden, Eric
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


O'Halloran, Michael
Silverman, Julius
White, James (Pollok)


Orbach, Maurice
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)
Whitehead, Phillip


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Snape, Peter
Whitlock, William


Ovenden, John
Spearing, Nigel
Wigley, Dafydd


Padley, Walter
Spriggs, Leslie
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Palmer, Arthur
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Pardoe, John
Steel, Rt Hon David
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Park, George
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Pavitt, Laurie
Stoddart, David
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Pendry, Tom
Stott, Roger
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Penhaligon, David
Strang, Gavin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Perry, Ernest
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Woodall, Alec


Prescott, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Woof, Robert


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Swain, Thomas
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Price, William (Rugby)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Radice, Giles
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)



Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Reid, George
Thompson, George
Mr. James Tinn and


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Mr. Joseph Dean




NOES


Adley, Robert
Clegg, Walter
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Aitken, Jonathan
Cockcroft, John
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Alison, Michael
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cope, John
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Arnold, Tom
Cormack, Patrick
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Corrie, John
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Costain, A. P.
Glyn, Dr Alan


Awdry, Daniel
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Baker, Kenneth
Critchley, Julian
Goodhart, Philip


Banks, Robert
Crouch, David
Goodhew, Victor


Bell, Ronald
Crowder, F. P.
Goodlad, Alastair


Bendall, Vivian
Dalyell, Tarn
Gorst, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Benyon, W.
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Grieve, Percy


Biffen, John
Drayson, Burnaby
Griffiths, Eldon


Biggs-Davison, John
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Grist, Ian


Blaker, Peter
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Grylls, Michael


Body, Richard
Durant, Tony
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dykes, Hugh
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)


Bottomley, Peter
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Elliott, Sir William
Hannam, John


Brittan, Leon
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Emery, Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Brooke, Hon Peter
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hastings, Stephen


Brotherton, Michael
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Eyre, Reginald
Hawkins, Paul


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hayhoe, Barney


Buchanan, Richard
Farr, John
Heseltine, Michael


Buck, Antony
Fell, Anthony
Hicks, Robert


Budgen, Nick
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Higgins, Terence L.


Bulmer, Esmond
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Hodgson, Robin


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Holland, Philip


Cant, R. B.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hordern, Peter


Carlisle, Mark
Fookes, Miss Janet
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Forman, Nigel
Howell, David (Guildford)


Channon, Paul
Forrester, John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Churchill, W. S.
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fox, Marcus
Hunt, John (Ravenebourne)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Hurd, Douglas


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fry, Peter
Hutchison, Michael Clark







Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Montgomery, vergus
Shelton, William (Streatham)


James, David
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Shepherd, Colin


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Shersby, Michael


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Morgan, Geraint
Silvester, Fred


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Sims, Roger


Jopling, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Sinclair, Sir George


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Neave, Airey
Skeet, T. H. H.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Nelson, Anthony
Skinner, Dennis


Kelley, Richard
Neubert, Michael
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Kershaw, Anthony
Newton, Tony
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Kilfedder, James
Normanton, Tom
Speed, Keith


Kimball, Marcus
Nott, John
Spence, John


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Onslow, Cranley
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Kinnock, Neil
Osborn, John
Sproat, Iain


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Page, John (Harrow West)
Stainton, Keith


Knight, Mrs Jill
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Knox, David
Page, Richard (Workington)
Stanley, John


Lamont, Norman
Parker, John
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Parkinson, Cecil
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Stokes, John


Lawrence, Ivan
Percival, Ian
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lawson, Nigel
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Tapsell, Peter


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Tebbit, Norman


Lloyd, Ian
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Loveridge, John
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Luce, Richard
Raison, Timothy
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


McCrindle, Robert
Rathbone, Tim
Townsend, Cyril D.


Macfarlane, Nell
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Trotter, Neville


MacGregor, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Viggers, Peter


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Rhodes James, R.
Wakeham, John


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Madel, David
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Ridsdale, Julian
Walters, Dennis


Marten, Neil
Rifkind, Malcolm
Warren, Kenneth


Mates, Michael
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Weatherill, Bernard


Mather, Carol
Roberts, Gwllym (Cannock)
Wells, John


Maude, Angus
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Whitney, Raymond


Mawby, Ray
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wiggin, Jerry


Mayhew, Patrick
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Winterton, Nicholas


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Miller, Hat (Bromsgrove)
Royle, Sir Anthony
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Mills, Peter
Sainsbury, Tim
Younger, Hon George


Miscampbell, Norman
St. John-Stevas, Norman



Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Scott, Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Moate, Roger
Scott-Hopkins, James
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Molyneaux, James
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton


Monro, Hector
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment no. 12 disagreed to.

Amendment in lieu made: In page 77, line 10, leave out 'concerning Scotland' and insert:
'which concerns Scotland (whether or not it also concerns any other part of the United Kingdom) but'.—[Mr. Harry Ewing.]

Lords amendments nos. 5 and 7 to 11 agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Millan, Mr. Harry Ewing, Mr. James Hamilton, Mr. Pym and Mr. John Stradling Thomas: Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Millan.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

WALES BILL

Lords amendments in lieu of certain of their amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, considered.

Clause 12

REVIEW OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE

The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 6, line 30, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment to the Bill in lieu thereof—

No. 1, in page 6, leave out lines 30 to 32 and insert:

"(1) The Assembly shall not, unless authorised to do so by order made by the Secretary of State, review the structure of local government in Wales.
(2) No such order shall be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."

8.21 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The Government find that the alternative amendment now proposed by the other place is even more unacceptable than its predecessor was. The original amendment which was disagreed to by this House would have removed the obligation on the Assembly to carry out a review of local government structure, but the Assembly would have been free to do so of its own volition or in response to a request from the Government.
The new amendment, however, positively debars the Assembly from carrying out a review of local government. The Government regard that as totally inappropriate, having regard to the substantial functions which the Bill confers on the Assembly in relation to local government and to important services provided by local authorities.
Surely, the Assembly must be entitled to review the structure of local government as part of its exercise of these important responsibilities and to report to the Government on its findings. To provide positively in the Bill that the Assembly shall not review the structure of local government in Wales is in my view an

unwarranted and offensive derogation from the functions that the Assembly could reasonably expect to exercise in an area in which it is to inherit the executive powers and the broader interests at present vested in Ministers.
Opposition Members will doubtless say that the amendment does not absolutely debar review; that, provided he receives the approval of both Houses of Parliament, the Secretary of State will be able to authorise the Assembly to carry out a review. But to me that is a rather grudging attitude. That is what the proposal represents. It introduces uncertainty into the whole question whether there is to be a review.
The amendment brings us back to the fundamental question: is there the need for such a review? Certainly, it is true that when the present structure of local government was set up it was opposed by the vast majority of Labour Members. It is certainly true that it was opposed by a large number of local authorities in Wales. Judging by the number of petitions which were presented to the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas), it seemed not to have a great deal of public support either.
I have been reading through the Official Report of some of those debates. I recall the number of amendments moved even on Report by hon. Members on both sides of the House who were critical of that local government structure. Those amendments were moved after we had spent a considerable time in Committee.
There were amendments from Flint-shire. Amendments were moved by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) in his own county interests. There were amendments on the carve-up of Glamorgan, and on Newport. Amendments on Rhymney were moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). Amendments were moved by the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower), because he was dissatisfied with the way in which Tongwynlais, Llahillterne and Radyr were treated. Amendments were moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Davies) because of his dissatisfaction with the way in which Gower was treated. There was a whole host of other amendments moved by hon. Members who were dissatisfied with the structure of local government.

Mr. Michael Roberts: The Minister has not included the amendment that I moved, that the county of Gwent should retain the name of Monmouth. Because one moves an amendment to a Bill, is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that that is a cause for the total review and reorganisation of local government?

Mr. Jones: I was merely saying that the number of amendments moved by a variety of hon. Members throughout Report stage—amendments covering north, south, east and west Wales, rural and urban areas—does not suggest that the Bill had the wholehearted consent of hon. Members. I well understand why the hon. Gentleman is somewhat sensitive on this, because he knows that the composition of the Committee which considered that matter had to be altered at a later date.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if the number of amendments moved to a Bill is an indication of dissatisfaction with that Bill, the Conservative Party on coming to power will be entitled to a major review of almost all the legislative functions of the present Government?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman must not count his chickens too soon. He has not come into power yet. After yesterday's performance in the House his chances are disappearing rapidly.
I mentioned those amendments and the numerous parts of Wales which they covered to indicate that certainly when the House was considering the Bill we were not exactly enamoured with it. That dissatisfaction, which was expressed in the Chamber and through the amendments, still exists. The anomalies and absurdities written into the Bill are still there.
To reach two houses in my constituency I have to drive through part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales—the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) —and partly through the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley). Then I arrive at a wonderful place, at the top end of Gilfach Goch, where there are two houses and four voters. Yet on every election, local or general, we have to set up the whole paraphernalia of a polling station. I can-

not believe that a democratically-elected Welsh Assembly would have tolerated such an absurdity in local government boundaries.

Mr. Michael Roberts: Is the Minister not aware that the Boundary Commission has not sat since the reorganisation of local government, and that when it does reorganise the boundaries along the lines of local government these anomalies will disappear?

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman not recall that there were many other instances in the Bill when boundaries were altered when it suited the Conservative Party? In this instance, when it was so obviously right and sensible that these two houses should be put into another constituency the matter could not even be considered. It was said that it was not the right vehicle by which to do that. Having carved up and altered boundaries throughout Wales, it was not possible to deal with those two houses at the top of Gilfach Goch.
The boundaries were not the only matter of great dissatisfaction among my hon. Friends. The question of functions gave rise to some debate. It is my experience—it is not necessarily shared by Tory Members or even by some of my hon. Friends—that there is considerable disquiet in Wales over some of the clashes that are occurring between district and county councils because of the way in which functions were allocated in that Bill. Certainly in planning matters, I suggest that there are not many hon. Members who have not come across instances in their own constituencies where the division of planning control is causing a nuisance.

Mr. Fred Evans: Is my hon. Friend arguing that the setting up of an expensive anachronism such as the Assembly is necessary to carry out a review of local government? Could not it be done independently?

Mr. Jones: All I suggest is that if we are to have a review—and I am trying first to establish the need for a review—no elected Welsh Assembly would make such a nonsense of it as happened on the last occasion.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is it not rather an expensive way to deal


with a little local difficulty in Gilfach Goch?

Mr. Jones: If we were dealing only with a little difficulty in Gilfach Goch, that would be one thing, but I read out a whole list of affected areas: Flintshire, Pembrokeshire, Glamorgan, Newport, Rhymney, Brynmawr, Vaynor, Penderyn, Cowbridge, Llanillterne, Tongwynlais, Radyr, Porthcawl, Rhondda. All those areas were affected by the reorganisation of local government, and hon. Members expressed their dissatisfaction on behalf of their constituents.
Difficulties arose over not only boundaries, but functions. Some hon. Members may not share my view about devolution, but I am sure they will concede that certain difficulties have been created between district and county councils over planning functions.
Another matter that is causing some disquiet is the feeling in some district councils in Wales that social services could, in the main, be better organised on a district level because of the feeling that the counties are far too remote from the people.
From all that, there is evidence that there is a need for a review of some sort, and if there has to be a review—as I believe there should be—somebody has to do it. This is perhaps where we come to the parting of the ways. We on the Government Benches, and, I believe, people throughout Wales, were not satisfied with the way in which things were done on the last occasion.
I recall that my hon. Friends and I voted against the very concept that one should have an England and Wales Bill dealing with local government reorganisation because we said that it would mean inadequate time to discuss local government reorganisation in Wales. Our view was not accepted, and when we reached the Report stage—this was about six years ago—on the last vote that was taken at 6 o'clock on a Friday evening there were fewer than 100 Members in the Chamber, because we were squeezed in at the tag end of the consideration of that Bill. When the Committee was set up, because it was an England and Wales Bill only six Welsh Members were able to

discuss the important amendments that we considered.
The way in which things were done showed that opinion in Wales was ignored. The hon. Member for Barry, when talking about the Pembrokeshire issue, saw it as a battle between David and Goliath. He saw it as David fighting against the resources of the Welsh Office and the mastery of both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Pembroke when he presented his amendment dealing with Pembrokeshire, reminded us that he had presented a petition to his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South, the then Secretary of State, signed by 55,562 people—more than 78 per cent. of his people. He went on to remind his right hon. and learned Friend that not only did the people of Wales oppose it, as shown by the petition, but the county council and borough and district councils had expressed their opposition. He added that virtually every local organisation had passed resolutions against what was proposed, and, for good measure, that all of the five political candidates at the previous General Election had indicated their dissatisfaction. He said:
If the Government persist they will be building a system of local government on the foundations of its total rejection by local democratic opinion."—[Official Report, 20th July 1972; Vol. 841, c. 1103.]
I believe that he was quite right and that is why I say that there is a need for a review. That review, if it is to express democratic opinion in Wales, ought to be carried out by an elected Assembly.

Sir Raymond Gower: Does the Minister think that these objective matters are best considered by a political body, with all that that involves, with people having partisan views? Is that the best sort of body to do this job as opposed to the impartial body which the House has always favoured in the past?

Mr. Jones: I am sorry to say that I do not believe that the decisions on the last occasion were made by some great impartial body. They were made by the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South and by the Government of which he was an important member. I went with a deputation from Glamorgan to see the then Prime Minister and to


draw his attention to these problems and to the fact that large numbers of people in Glamorgan found the proposals completely unacceptable. I am sure that the decisions taken then were Government decisions in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman played a part.

Mr. Peter Thomas: The Minister knows very well that local government reorganisation in Wales was based on the Redcliffe-Maud report and to a great extent on the 1967 Green Paper produced by his right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes). Although there may have been certain decisions which inevitably had to be taken by me—as Secretary of State, after consultation with the interested bodies and after representations had been made—the main structure followed the recommendations of an independent commission.

Mr. Jones: The right hon. and learned Gentleman conceded my point when he said that the main decisions were taken by the Secretary of State. The structure might have been there, but the important decisions concerning those boundaries came from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am sure that he remembers that Redcliffe-Maud did not apply to Wales although I do not make much of that point. Ultimately, if there were any elements in the report which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not prepared to accept, he did not accept them because he was able to carry his proposals through the House. In the light of present experience and of the criticisms that have been made, and because of the anomalies built into the system, I believe that there is need for a review. If we do it as we did it on the last occasion we are likely to end up in the same sort of mess. That is why I believe that it is appropriate for the elected Assembly to have this function.
I strongly urge the House to reject the amendment, as it rejected its predecessor. This will restore the original decision and will let the Assembly and the local authorities know exactly where they stand. As I have explained previously when we have considered this matter, there is no question of any duty being placed on the Assembly to do more than review and report. Any action to be taken on the report will be for the Government in the first place. Thereafter, if

legislation is involved, it will be for this House and another place.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I wish that all of my speeches were quoted at such length and with such enthusiasm by the Minister. Naturally I agree with him that it was an excellent speech. I hope that he agrees that all of my other speeches are as good. I tell him now, as I tell the people of my constituency, that a further upheaval in local government at this time would be total madness, not least as the price that would be paid is the removal of much local democratic decision-making from the local government organisation closest to the people, further away and notably to an Assembly in Cardiff dominated by the political forces based on the industrial valleys of South Wales. That is nothing to the advantage of my constituents in West Wales, and they realise it only too well.
The Minister said that the Lords amendment was a retrograde step because the Assembly must be entitled to review local government. He said that it was a natural executive function. But the suggestion from the Lords that the power should be taken away from the Assembly arises from the unsatisfactory nature of the proposals contained in the Bill, which divide the legislative function in two. They split up the job of an executive and administrative body in considering how government works and the job of carrying legislation into effect.
It must be an equally reasonable proposition to advance that as the legislative function remains in this House, Parliament should have the authority to initiate any review that it will have to carry out.
The Minister listed a catalogue of amendments moved to the Bill. But if it is to be a principle that because amendments are moved to a Bill a substantial upheaval and review by a subsequent Government is justified, we are setting out on an interesting road and a new precedent has been established, not least for the future of the Assembly and the Bill passing through the House at present.
If the Minister's proposal is to be taken seriously, it is an invitation to a future Government to review completely the structure being established by this Bill and the form that the Assembly is to take. I do not think that that is what


the hon. Member was suggesting, but there is no doubt that that is the conclusion to be drawn from his remarks.
The Minister gave examples of boundary inconsistencies. But he knows that there is a Boundary Commission appointed to deal with such anomalies and inconsistencies. It has already met and reviewed a number of boundary changes in my constituency, and it has made proposals which have been accepted by all those concerned. It has done it in a reasonable, dispassionate and sensible manner. The Minister knows that to talk about two or three odd houses in his constituency or outside it is totally irrelevant and that those can be dealt with all too easily by the Boundary Commission.
Then the hon. Member referred to the clash of planning and social service functions between district councils and the county councils. But again he knows that these are changes which can be made simply and without this major upheaval and uncertainty by any responsible Government of the day. If the hon. Member feels so strongly about them, there is nothing to prevent him from coming forward with legislative proposals at present, or they can be handled and carried into effect by a future Government. The hon. Member must realise that all his arguments are totally irrelevant and have no bearing on the ultimate decision on this amendment.
When we last debated this issue, the Secretary of State told us that he had perambulated round Wales and found dissatisfaction with local government. He concluded, therefore, that it should be reviewed, and he suggested that a democratic body such as the Assembly would be a suitable body to carry out that review. Those who have perambulated around England find similar complaints about local government reform. That is not surprising because, as I observed during a previous debate, any major reform of local government, which happens in the United Kingdom about every 70 or 80 years, will almost certainly be followed by a period of dissatisfaction and criticism as we adapt ourselves to the new arrangement and become accustomed to it.
8.45 p.m.
The Government have not explained why they have reached the conclusion that in England, as they stated in the White Paper, a further reorganisation so soon after the last one would be bound to create confusion in the mind of the average elector and would probably make him feel more remote from the affairs of a local government body administering services over a much wider area, as would be the case with regional authorities, and yet have come to a totally different conclusion about Wales. They have not explained either why they have reached a conclusion about Wales different from that arrived at by the former Prime Minister the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), who went to Cardiff in 1976 and said:
To impose yet another reorganisation would be a burden not easily to be tolerated. We will not throw the whole of local government into the melting-pot.
That is precisely what the Government are now doing. The truth is that the clause has been introduced as a cosmetic as a desperate attempt to disguise and paint the face of a raddled harridan of a Bill because the Govenment were confronted with the fact that the Bill is singuarly unalluring both to the House and to the people of Wales. The Secretary of State for Wales has made a characteristic attempt to buy cheap popularity.
We have the peculiar situation that though on every other issue we are told that the Assembly must be given discretion and that it would be insulting to tell it what to do, on this issue it is given an order, a peremptory command —namely, "Whether you like it or not, whether you think it a good thing or a bad thing, you will review local government. You will do so for no better reason than to make me, the Secretary of State for Wales, offer local government reform as a bribe for my bad and unpopular Bill."

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The hon. Gentleman will remember that the Secretary of State was interrupted a great deal, so he need not pull a face. Does he agree that clause 12 does not provide when the review shall take place? It is for the Assembly's discretion when a review shall take place.

Mr. Edwards: That is precisely the point to which I am about to turn. I propose to deal with it at some length. I remind the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) that when he previously addressed the House on this subject he said that the outcome of such a review would be only a few small and insignificant changes. We must question whether a major upheaval and all the uncertainties that the proposal causes is justified in the cause of a few small and unimportant changes.
Surely the other place has hit on a critical matter. Whether a review of local government is desirable and whether the Assembly will at some stage be the right body to carry it out, it is self-evident—this is implicit in what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said—that for a considerable period it will be incapable of properly carrying out such an exercise.
The history of local government reform surely provides the warning and the lesson. A new structure needs time to settle down. New men need time to find their feet. Knowledge and experience have to be acquired, working methods have to be developed and techniques have to be invented. That is true when we consider an existing body or structure, or existing men and women, and reshuffle organisations to produce new patterns of responsibility. However, in that situation there is at least a continuing thread of experience. Most of those in local government, whether appointed or elected, have been involved before and can build on their experience.
It will not be like that in the Assembly. The Assembly will attempt to undertake a totally new responsibility. It will experiment with a technique of government which has not been attempted before in this country. We do not know who the administrators will be or what their experience will be. We do not know how varied will be the previous experience of elected Members of the Assembly. But we can be certain that for a considerable time—for several years—they will have a full-time task in establishing themselves, in making the Assembly work, in building links with local government and nominated bodies and with all the other organisations for which they will be responsible.

Mr. Alec Jones: The hon. Member suggests that the Assembly will be so busy for such a long time that it will not have time to reorganise or review local government. How can he also argue that it is too soon to do that now?

Mr. Edwards: It is always a mistake to give way at a point in a speech when one is about to discuss a subject which is raised in an intervention. To create a major period of uncertainty, if there is to be a delay, must be a huge mistake. It is an act of madness to attempt, during childhood and adolescence, a task which would test all the abilities and require the accumulated wisdom of a mature body. The Government propose that throughout this period overhanging the Assembly will be the peremptory order to carry out a review of local government. That proposition is in the Bill.
Inevitably there will be a continuing clamour for the Assembly to get on with that task. People will say "Look, you have been charged with the job of reforming local government. Why are you not doing that job? Let us carry out the investigation." The Members of the Assembly would be less than human if they resisted that clamour. If they do resist it and wait, as prudence dictates, uncertainty will hang like a cloud over local government and those employed in it. It is hard to imagine a more unsatisfactory situation.
When the time comes for the review to take place we might be in a wholly different situation. Public reaction to local government might be different from that found by the Secretary of State, and the clamour for reform might have subsided. Surely, the Lords are right to maintain that even if the Assembly is the right body to do the job, the threat should be lifted from local government until the Assembly is equipped and qualified to carry out the review.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for the Liberal Party, said that the review would not happen straight away and that common sense would not allow it to happen for several years. Can it be right that for several years we should leave local government in uncertainty? It is irresponsible of the Government to have created the uncertainty in the first place. They should now remove that uncertainty.
The responsibility for legislating on local government, as on other matters, remains with this Parliament. It is therefore right that this Parliament should judge when that review should take place and whether at that time the Assembly is the proper body to carry out that review.
Whatever happens in the Assembly and whatever happens in electoral terms on a United Kingdom basis, it is certain that before the review can get under way there will be a new Government and a new Parliament at Westminster. It is wrong that a Government who cannot, by the nature of things, have the responsibility, should set in motion a series of events for which their successors will have to take responsibility and will have to act.
If we were to accept—and I do not—that a review is desirable and that in due course the Assembly might be the appropriate body to do it, the Bill, if approved by a referendum, will enable those things to happen. By passing the Lords amendment we shall not prevent them from happening. But surely the sensible practical course of action is to leave the decision whether to proceed to the Government of the day who would have to implement any scheme of reform.
One other point was put with force, particularly by Lord Heycock, whose experience of the Labour Party and local government makes the Under-Secretary appear in this respect almost as a toddler in nappies. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary repeatedly tell us of the demands in the Labour movement for the changes that they propose. Surely it is not insignificant that their Socialist colleague, who probably knows more about these matters than almost anyone else in Wales, is opposed to what they are doing.
The noble Lord and others made the important point that no review, and certainly no legislation for local government reform, should be carried through in isolation of consideration of the position in England. They said that whatever the particular needs and problems of Wales, the desirability of finding a common pattern with common features for the United Kingdom as a whole should not be overlooked.
In this respect we have only to consider what would happen if we were deal-

ing with devolution for the United Kingdom as a whole and were establishing regional assemblies in England. It would surely be inconceivable that each regional English assembly would independently be permitted to review local government in its own region and recommend a pattern completely different from that of its neighbours. Still less could one conceive that a Government would carry such diverse recommendations into effect.
Surely, as Lord Heycock observed we do not want to put local government in Wales, which has been established on a basis similar to that across the border since 1888, in a completely different position now. Surely, as Lord Elton urged, there should be some form of compatibility. It follows that if a Government wished a review of local government in Wales to proceed, they should at the very outset and at the very least require that the reviewing body should consider and take account of the situation in England.
There may be other factors that it should sensibly consider and be required to consider. Is it not at least possible that by the time there is a review, this Parliament will have given further consideration—some may think overdue consideration—to the whole question of local government finance? If that is so, the review should surely be required to take that into account. Government should see that proper consideration is given to these and other matters that will have to be borne in mind. Parliament should require that the terms of reference should be laid down, and that can best be done as proposed in the Lords amendment by orders laid before and approved by Parliament.

Mr. Anderson: Does the hon. Member accept that another possible change on the horizon is the new relationship between the old county boroughs—the organic change that is being floated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment? It could be a new relationship which could have relevance for Wales with the Swansea, Newport and other county boroughs.

Mr. Edwards: The point is that the Bill imposes an obligation to review without providing any terms of reference for


the body that has to carry out the legislation. Surely it would be sensible to provide, by orders in this House, that the terms of reference are laid down.
For all these reasons I believe that clause 12 as it stands is indefensible and that the Lords amendment is eminently sensible and should be supported. The Government's proposals will cause maximum uncertainty for local government over a long period. They may well cause an Assembly which should be fully occupied in establishing itself to hurry into a review for which it is ill prepared and inadequately equipped.
The Government's proposals fail to guarantee that the relationship with English local government is considered or that financial considerations or any other aspects that may be important are taken into account. The Government's scheme forecloses a decision which rightly should be taken by a Government and Parliament that will have the job of legislating.
The Lords amendment would ensure that the decision whether to review would be taken for sound reasons and not just to sell an unpopular Bill. It would be taken after consideration of the needs of local government and the situation in local government, and not as a cosmetic, and the amendment would ensure that decisions would be taken at the right time and in the right way. It leaves the responsibility for initiating the review with this Parliament, which will have to carry the recommendations into law. It is sensible, it is moderate and it deserves the support of the House.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Ifor Davies: This House has previously made the decision that the proposed Assembly shall review the structure of local government in Wales. I shall not offend the rules of order by repeating the arguments. I want to confine my remarks directly to the amendment before us.
The clear question now before the House in the amendment concerns the timing of such a review. The question of timing is all-important. It would appear that more and more emphasis and importance is becoming attached to the Assembly carrying out this review. Indeed, it is now being talked about as one of its priority tasks. Inferences are drawn that there should be an early review, an

early report and an early reorganisation. But we are dealing with an Assembly which has substantial functions already conferred upon it in relation to local government and to the important services provided by local government—in other words, an Assembly with an identity of interest.
The question of the reorganisation of local government is an extremely delicate and sensitive issue. I can say that from my own experience in local government, and, if the House will permit a personal reference, from my experience as a Welsh Office Minister involved in our earlier proposals, together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes).
In this country we have adopted various methods of tackling the problem. Sometimes there is a Royal Commission. I think that we are fortunate that we can generally find a body of people who are impartial and able to approach a problem with some detachment, hear all the evidence and give an opinion. But that is not the only way to investigate the matter, and now we have the proposed Assembly.
The amendment is a reasonable amendment in so far as it seeks to re-establish the authority of the Secretary of State as to the important issue of timing the review. I see nothing wrong in that. I also look upon the amendment as safeguarding the authority of the Secretary of State over the Assembly in this vital issue. Moreover, I consider that this is consistent with the assurances that have been given to us from time to time that this Parliament will still remain supreme.
Therefore, in all seriousness, I submit that it is no reflection whatsoever upon the Assembly to say that it must await the authority of the Secretary of State before proceeding with the review. I can see nothing offensive in that, especially as we are told that the Assembly will have many other tasks to perform in any case.
I acknowledge that there has been criticism, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, of the existing structure of local government in Wales. But I am also fully aware, as a result of my own close contact with local government, that there is considerable anxiety regarding the procedure and the timing of the


carrying out of a further review. So I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to accept the amendment as a reasonable proposition.

Sir Raymond Gower: I very much agree with what the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Davies) said. He has had long experience in local government and in the Welsh Office and therefore speaks with great authority. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will not think me unfair if I say that he was very unconvincing. I do not know whether it was because he lacked the heart to say the things that he was trying to say, but certainly he did not give the impression that his heart was in the job.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the fact that one disagrees with a person renders him unconvincing?

Sir R. Gower: The fact that we dis- agree and remain unconvinced by his argument on this occasion does not mean that we do not acknowledge the force of some of the things that he says on other occasions. The Under-Secretary of State said that there should be a review because the Bill is laying new and important functions on local government. That is a farfetched argument to say the least.
This Parliament has always laid important functions on local government. Some of the great local authorities in Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom have had enormous tasks to carry out for a long time, and to suggest that the Bill in some way puts local government in a new position is quite inaccurate. If it is the Under-Secretary of State's argument that, because the Bill makes some references to local government, that is sufficient ground for the review, I reject it.
Next, the hon. Gentleman said that another reason was that the changes in local government were opposed at the time of the passing of the Local Government Act by some Labour Members. But surely it is natural for an Opposition to oppose. It would have been very unnatural if, on such a major Bill, the Opposition of the day had not expressed criticism of its proposals.

Mr. Alec Jones: I did not make the point that the only amendments to the

Local Government Bill were put down by Labour Members. I made the point that there were so many criticisms concerning the boundaries that they were expressed by amendments emanating from all over Wales and on both sides of the House, including some from the hon. Gentleman himself.

Sir R. Gower: The hon. Gentleman said that some of the changes in local government had been opposed by some Labour Members. I am only suggesting that that is not an unnatural function for an Opposition. I accept that many Conservatives, in the interests of our constituencies, objected to minor changes, which is what they were. People in little localities do not like to be changed or moved. They object even if the change may be beneficial in the long run, and their local Member of Parliament invariably takes up the cudgels on their behalf. Whenever changes of this kind are recommended or introduced in any proposals before Parliament, either for boundary changes in parliamentary elections or for local government changes, there is resistance and people object.
The hon. Gentleman also said that there were many objections to the details of the Local Government Bill. I recall that it differed from the earlier proposals presented to Parliament by the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and also by Mr. Speaker when he was Secretary of State for Wales. But their proposals were along the same lines. One of the Labour Government's proposals was substantially different only in that it proposed one county in the North of Wales. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas), having considered the matter, decided that it was best to have Clwyd and Gwynedd instead of having the one large county which the Labour Government had proposed.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The hon. Gentleman says this, but surely he must concede that there were very substantial differences between the legislation which ultimately came before this House and the proposals which were made in 1967. One can point to what happened in Glamorgan. It aroused the criticism of hon. Members from that county. One could quote their speeches at great length,


and show the passion aroused by the proposals in the Bill, which involved, among other things, the abolition of the county boroughs and other very substantial differences. It is quite wrong to say that it was the proposals of 1967, or anything like them, which eventually appeared in the Conservative Bill.

Sir R. Gower: When the right hon. Gentleman refers to the abolition of the county boroughs, he knows very well that this happened over the whole of the United Kingdom. It was not peculiar to Wales. The whole basis of local government reorganisation was to merge the city with the country and to reduce that awful dichotomy which had existed between the great cities and the rural surroundings. The objective was to merge them and to reduce that great difference between the two.

Mr. Hughes: I am not arguing the merits of the case but making a statement of fact, pointing out that these differences existed.

Sir R. Gower: And there were enormous similarities. In particular, the disappearance of the county boroughs was consistent with all the proposals for cities in England as well as in Wales, where the merger was on similar lines. The Minister referred to constituency anomalies. That was a pettifogging argument. That is the only word I can use when the Minister refers to some little village in his constituency with a couple of houses.

Mr. Alec Jones: Do I take it, then, that the amendments that the hon. Gentleman moved were pettifogging?

Sir R. Gower: No. I was referring to what the Minister said about some little village in his own constituency with two or maybe three houses. I will not argue the point. Even if we accept his argument, he must be perfectly aware that those anomalies could easily be ironed out without a review of local government. I am sure that he would not deny that. It does not need a review of local government throughout Wales to iron out the anomalies to which he referred. I hope that he will take that view.
We originally sought to exclude the clause that was in the Bill initially. It was a very unfortunate clause. It said that there should be a mandatory injunction upon the Assembly to conduct

this review. It distinguished between all the other functions of the Assembly and this matter. It was particularly unfortunate, I thought, that it was singled out in this way. If it was so vital, why was it not in the Government's original proposals? If the matter were so important, why was it not in the original Scotland and Wales Bill? If people are shouting about local government and denouncing the iniquities of my right hon. and learned Friend's settlement, why was this not in the original Bill?

Mr. Alec Jones: Surely the hon. Gentleman is well aware that when we published the White Paper, when we published the Scotland and Wales Bill, and when we published the separate Bills, we said quite clearly that we were still prepared to listen to representations from people. That is what we have done. Indeed, it is because we listened to those representations that some of the changes were brought about.

Sir R. Gower: Presumably, then, if the original Bill had been passed, this would not have been in it? That is implicit in what the Minister has just said. If the original Bill had been passed last year, there would have been no such clause. If local government reform was so bad, why is there not a similar provision for England or Scotland? Why is there only such a provision in respect of Wales? It is made perfectly clear in the White Paper on England that there is no need for this kind of thing and, indeed, that it would be highly undesirable.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: If the hon. Gentleman comes to my constituency, the Isle of Wight, he will discover that the people there are just longing for local government reorganisation.

Sir R. Gower: Nevertheless, the White Paper on England said that there was no need for local government reorganisation. Indeed, it went further and said that it would be a great mistake which could do infinite harm.
We Conservatives wanted this clause entirely removed from the Bill, but unfortunately we failed. Now, thanks to another place, we have before us a different sort of amendment. The Minister said that in some strange way this amendment was even more objectionable than


the other one. But I cannot see how that can be the case, because this permits a review provided that the Secretary of State of the day is satisfied that the time is opportune and that such a review is essential. Therefore, this amendment goes rather further than the original one. I plead with the Government to consider this with sympathy.
One of my hon. Friends referred to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Heycock. I have had the honour of knowing Lord Heycock for many years. Few persons have given greater service to the Labour Party, and to education in particular, in Wales. For two decades he was chairman of the education authority of the old Glamorgan County Council. He was recognised widely as one who gave remarkable service in that sphere. Following reorganisation, he was a sort of founder-chairman of the new West Glamorgan authority. When he intervened in the debate in another place, he spoke as one who has certainly had more practical experience of education and local authority work than any hon. Member of this House. It is he who said that this kind of review would be very injurious at this time. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the Government will realise that it is not we Conservatives alone who take this view.
There are many people outside the Conservative Party, certainly within the Labour Party, who feel that what local government in the Principality needs more than anything is time to settle down. It is unfair to all those employed in local Government that twice in the same decade they should be exposed to this uncertainty. Six or seven years ago, they recognised that after so long it was perhaps inevitable that there should be some reorganisation. But it is very unfair again to have this threat hanging over their heads. That is reprehensible on the part of this administration.
I hope that the Government will take this opportunity of removing from the minds of everyone employed by every local authority in Wales the threat to their jobs and the anxieties which they feel about the future. Instead I hope the Government will give them hope that the new authorities, which started off under considerable difficulties, are beginning to do excellent work. That is the message

which I am getting from many parts of the Principality.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower). He spoke with passion on a matter that is close to his heart. Had he been here, I am sure that my noble Friend Lord Heycock would have been moved by the tributes which the hon. Gentleman paid to him. But I think the hon. Member for Barry was less than fair to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who I thought made a sound case against the amendment that was passed in another place.
It is true, in so far as I can gauge public opinion in Wales, that people generally are not enamoured with the reform that was implemented by the last Conservative Government. Of course time makes a little difference. People get used to the new system, and situations become entrenched. Despite this, the criticisms continue. The speeches made from hon. Members on the Government Benches during the progress of that Bill through the House of Commons and some made on the Conservative Benches—notably by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards), who fought certain parts of the measure with great determination—still hold good. The arguments advanced then are equally valid now.
This is not a criticism of the officials of the new local authorities or of the councillors who sit on them. They have done their best, sometimes in most difficult circumstances, to make the new structure work.
It is also true that when local authorities become entrenched they do not want change. I understand that argument perfectly well. I can understand the argument of Lord Heycock, whose experience in local government is unparalleled. But the longer the new system is in existence the more difficult it will be to alter it. It took nearly 80 years to change the previous system. The longer this one remains in existence the more difficult it will become—the more nearly impossible—to change it. If a change is to be made, let it be considered now, before the situation develops too far.
I further take the view that the creation of the Assembly itself is an argument for a further look at local government in Wales. We have our county councils,


our district councils and our community councils. The creation of the Assembly will add not another tier to local government; it will create another elected body in Wales. Given that Wales is a small country of 2½ million people or so, and a fairly small geographical area, there is a strong case for looking at local government, and doing so reasonably quickly. Four levels of elected bodies may be too many.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman said that the review should take place now. When he last spoke on the subject he said that it would take about four years. Does he think that the review should start now, or should it start in four years? What exactly does he mean by the timing? What he just said implies a straight threat to local government that part of it should be swept away.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member is distorting what I said. Previously I indicated that the time scale of reform would be about four years. That was by the time the Assembly was set up and the elections had been held. I made a guess that before a review could come to a conclusion the whole process would take about four years. There is nothing untoward in that.
I believe that the Assembly, when it comes into existence, should set up the machinery for looking at local government. It could set up a working party and that working party would have advisers, and could call witnesses. When the hon. Member for Barry talks about the need for non-political experts looking at these things, he knows that in the final analysis the judgment made must be a political one. When, as Ministers, we examined the subject of the reform of local government in the "sixties" we sat round the table for a long time and considered the recommendations of the working party. Its work was invaluable, but at the end of the day the judgment was ours and the responsibility in producing the White Paper was mine.

Sir Raymond Gower: The right hon. Gentleman is now advocating a political judgment superimposed on another political judgment. In his case he would base the political judgment on the impartial findings of a committee such as Redcliffe-Maud, or some working party.

However, he is now proposing that a decision will be made by a future Secretary of State based on an Assembly's finding, and it will be an Assembly of people elected on a political basis.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is getting a little too convoluted in his argument. I shall turn to the subject of the Assembly in a moment. I am saying that it is a political judgment after long and anxious thought, and not an arbitrary, snap judgment. Ministers consider the position very carefully and they try to do what is in the best interests of the country. I must give credit to the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) for producing that part of the Local Government Reorganisation Act which affected Wales. He did what he thought was best for Wales at the time, even though we disagreed with much of it. But this was a political judgment. It is inevitable in a democracy like ours that it should be a political judgment, based on the advice of experts and the help of knowledgeable people in various fields.
I believe that the Assembly is a proper body to conduct this review. I have been surprised at the amount of criticism from the Opposition of its probable quality in advance of the election of an Assembly. I have been astonished at the fears, apprehensions and suspicions which have been voiced about the capacity of a Welsh Assembly to carry out this work. I take the view that if the people of Wales elect an Assembly of 70 people, they will be as competent to carry out their work as we here are competent to carry out ours. We as Members of Parliament must not be scared or apprehensive of Members of the Assembly, any more than we should be frightened of members of county or borough councils.
I am confident that the people of Wales will elect a worthy body, and I think that it is reprehensible for the hon. Member for Pembroke to think that there is something wrong in the fact that the majority of the people of Wales who happen to live in Gwent and Glamorgan will have a preponderance of representation in the Assembly. That is the way in which the population of Wales, for good or ill, is spread out. It will be a democratic body. I am confident that the representatives of the people of Gwent and Glamorgan will do what is best for the people of Anglesey and other parts


of Wales. The people of Anglesey will also have their representatives at the Assembly, and their views will be heard.
Let us bring this divisive argument to an end. Let it not be said that the people of Wales are incapable of electing worthy and able people to represent them. Some of the speeches remind me of John Knox and Savonarola inveighing against their opponents.
I am also worried by the fact that the amendment passed in another place will require the agreement of the other place—a body which still has a majority of hereditary Members—to decide whether an elected Assembly in Wales should carry out a review. I find that distasteful. I think it was a speech I read by the leader of the West Glamorgan County Council, Mr. Allison, which put the objection to this quite clearly, and I agreed with everything he said.

Mr. Anderson: I have had confirmation from the leader of the West Glamorgan County Council that he was irritated at the way in which his words had been taken out of context.

Mr. Hughes: I would not wish to take the words of the leader of the West Glamorgan County Council out of context. I have high regard for that gentleman, whom I have known for many years.

Mr. Anderson: He did not make the remark.

Mr. Hughes: If he did not say it, then of course I withdraw my remarks. I was assuming that what appeared in the Western Mail was true. I must not sail into that uncharted sea.
9.30 p.m.
The opponents of the Bill are causing a storm in a teacup. At the end of the day, the decision will be taken here, in this House. The Assembly will make recommendations. If they are not satisfactory, the House does not have to accept them. Indeed, the Secretary of State and the Government do not have to accept them.
The time has come for us to accept with good grace that the Assembly will come into existence, that it will be effective, that it will be democratic and that it will consist of people who are as experienced in public life as we are. They

will be capable of giving more time to producing a cogent report on local government reform than we are. At the end of the day, the House of Commons will decide whether the report is to be implemented.
It is for that reason that I support and congratulate my hon. Friend not only on the part that he has played throughout the progress of the Bill but on the speech that he has just made.

Mr. Hooson: The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) has done a service to the House by bringing an air of sanity and balance to the debate. This debate illustrates, as similar debates have illustrated, the iniquitous fact that the last reform of local government in Wales was against the wishes of the vast majority of Welsh Members and before we had the Kilbrandon Report. Logically, we should have been in a position to discuss the pattern of local government in Wales in the light of an Assembly.
It is significant that the one effective argument advanced today in support of the local government set-up in Wales is the fear of further upheaval and disturbance, not its merits. I am not in any way under-estimating the force of that argument. People do not want further upheaval. Nevertheless, we should be fooling ourselves if we thought that the people of Wales were satisfied with their local government set-up.
My experience is that every institution whether it be a county council, a district council or a community council—creates its own vested interests through its councillors and officials who do not want change and who become its great advocates. Nevertheless, the Welsh people have been dissatisfied with local government reform.
I come back to the point made by the right hon. Member for Anglesey. The Welsh Assembly will be a democratically elected body with representatives from all parts of Wales. Its Members will be no more politically motivated than are Members elected to this House. The Assembly will be no more and no less democratic than this House.
The Members of the Assembly will be in touch with local government in their own areas. They will know the force of the argument against further upheaval.


They will know, as the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) said in a rather ambivalent speech, that the Assembly will have a great deal to do in the first two or three years of its existence. It will have to rehearse its power, as it were, and decide how it will act and become an effective body. As local government takes a long time to find its feet after it is reformed and set-up, so will the Welsh Assembly.
The hon. Member for Pembroke, in the first part of his rather ambivalent speech, spoke of imminent threats to local government. He said that the reform would take place almost immediately and that councillors, officials and so on would be apprehensive because of it.
In the second part of his speech, the hon. Gentleman got far closer to reality when he pointed out that the Assembly would have a great deal to do and that it would probably take it some time—some years, he suggested—before it got round to setting up the right machinery for reviewing local government.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong. In the first part of my speech I said that the Assembly would not be able to carry out the reform quickly for the reasons I set out. Therefore, in the second part of my speech I reached the conclusion that there would be a long period of uncertainty. There is nothing ambivalent about that.

Mr. Hooson: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, he should read his speech. He suggested that there was a threat to local government now. He used the word "now". Other hon. Members heard him.
There are safeguards. As the right hon. Member for Anglesey pointed out, not only is there no limit on the time that the Assembly has to consider the matter—and it will do it when it wishes in its judgment, being a democratically elected Assembly—but it is asked to make recommendations to the Secretary of State before any further action can be taken. The matter must be reviewed by the Secretary of State of the time, whatever his political complexion. He must take a decision on the matter.
If the Secretary of State has a definite view that there should be any change in

function or structure of local government in Wales, he has to bring proposals before the House. Then the elected Members representative of Wales here, as well as all other elected representatives, have to vote in favour before there can be any change of local government in Wales. Why, therefore, has there been all the false propaganda suggesting that Welsh local government is in any way prejudiced by the provision?

Mr. Peter Thomas: If clause 12 had been eliminated, would not the Assembly still have the right to review local government of its own volition? Could it not recommend changes, or report to the Secretary of State, without the inclusion of the clause? The clause imposes a mandatory obligation on it, the effect of which is that inevitably an overbearing tension will be on local government throughout Wales as soon as the Bill becomes law.

Mr. Hooson: There is a strongly arguable case that the Assembly would be competent to review local government, but I can see the opposing argument that we should be interfering with the powers of this House and that the Assembly, because it is set up under an Act of Parliament, is specifically confined to the powers allocated to it. Therefore, it is strongly arguable the other way. It is my personal view that the Assembly would be competent to discuss local government, but I do not think that my conclusion is not open to argument.

Mr. Thomas: I put my question to the hon. and learned Gentleman on the authority of the Lord Chancellor, who told the other place that:
The original Amendment would have removed the obligation on the Assembly to carry out a review of local government structure. But, at any rate, under that Amendment the Assembly would be free to review of its own volition local government structure."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24th July 1978; Vol. 395, c. 672.]

Mr. Hooson: I have great respect for the Lord Chancellor, but during my career I have known him to be wrong once or twice on certain legal matters.
I ask again: what prejudice is there to local government in Wales by the provision? As the provision is in the Bill and there is no time limit on it, there can be no argument but that the Assembly is competent to consider local


government in Wales. It will not be open to anyone to argue that it could not consider the reform of local government in Wales.
Secondly, there are eminent safeguards. There is the safeguard of the report going to the Secretary of State. Then it must be brought before the House. To be realistic, there is no possibility of any real changes taking place for years.
Let us go to the question of local government in Wales. The Under-Secretary of State quite rightly referred to the great criticism that there has been of the division of powers in planning matters. The planning powers of district councils are almost equivalent to those attributed to county councils, and one finds—one meets this in Powys now—a continual clash on policy between district and county councils. Is anybody in this House suggesting that that should not be reviewed?
The county of Powys is enormous. It entails almost a day's journey for a councillor to get from the extremity of the county to the county town, yet we have a sparse population. There was an enormous argument in favour of such areas as mine—I am not saying that this applies to the rest of Wales—having an all-purpose authority, as a matter of common sense. Should it not be open to the Assembly, over the years, to consider representations from the different parts of Wales and to make recommendations to the Secretary of State that it thinks that certain areas are too large? There could be a different kind of pattern to suit certain areas. The Secretary of State would then have to consider the matter and bring it before the House.
Have we the right to prevent a democratically elected Welsh Assembly from considering this matter? Are we saying that our successors, whoever they may be in Parliament in, say, a decade, should not have the right to look at this matter and the considered recommendations of the Assembly? I think that a great deal of nonsense has been talked about this provision. It is a healthy provision, and there are any number of safeguards to prevent the worst ills that have been suggested by right hon. and hon. Members who have been opposing the original clause and supporting the House of Lords.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I thoroughly enjoyed listening to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). He made one of the most articulate and specific anti-devolution speeches that I have ever heard in the course of our several debates on this vexed subject of local government reform.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that there was the offer, implicit in the Government's proposition, that everyone in Wales, in the event of a Welsh Assembly having the power to review, being allowed to do his own thing. It suits a certain populist theme in politics to propose that everybody should be the master of his own destiny. Philosophically that is an attitude with which I agree, but the practicalities of it are somewhat different.
I say that because what we shall hear if the Government's proposition in clause 12 becomes the substance of the Bill—in other words, if we reject what the Lords propose—is that at the referendum—which is the whole purpose towards which clause 12 is directed—in the event of the review powers being extended to the Assembly, automatically, because of its sensitivity to the local needs of Wales, to the provincial needs of Wales, to the parochial needs within Wales, all those who voted "Yes" to the Assembly are thereby voting for a means of tailoring their immediate local government needs to meet what they imagine to be the needs of their communities.
We heard from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, as we have never before heard it so explicitly from anybody on either side of the House, exactly what advantages could be proposed. While there is a certain charm in what he proposes, especially in a sprawling county such as Powys—and I think I could imagine instances even in my own county of Gwent, which is much more intensely occupied—the problem is that of having an enormous inconsistency of local government function, of local government financing and of local government powers.
It might be charming and appealing to have a disparate pattern of local government, to have massive boroughs, counties and municipal boroughs, and to have some new hybrid local government organisation such as is proposed indirectly


by the hon. and learned Gentleman, with five or six different kinds of local government organisation, but if that were to happen, instead of getting all the advantages of local democracy, a maximum amount of efficiency and local accountability combined with the maximum amount of good husbandry of local economic resources we should have an absolute mish-mash.
9.45 p.m.
I do not say that the people of Wales would be irresponsible when offered that proposition. They are bound to follow their vested interests and to listen to the blandishments of pro-devolutionists who will say "If you vote for the Assembly you will be able to do your own thing in local government." I suggest that that is the proposition behind clause 12.
Much else has come from this debate. I did not think that it was possible, after the amount of time we have spent over the past six or seven years dealing with local government in Wales—including proceedings on the Wales Bill—to find much more that was original to say. The nature of parliamentary scrutiny is such that the more frequently we give attention to matters, the more we dig, the more we expose the inconsistencies and the strengths of an argument. That shows how useful is our procedure of scrutiny.
It would be wrong for me to say that I have any sympathy with the view expressed by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards), that somehow, because of the horrific possibilities following a loss of equilibrium in our local authorities and all of the difficulties that might be encountered by a precipitate review, there is therefore a substantial argument against awarding powers of review to the Welsh Assembly. I do not think that that is so.
There is widespread discontent with local government and with government generally. Since we are discussing this matter on the basis of six years' experience we should consider the possibility of changing a mistaken pattern of local government, a mistaken allocation of power. The opportunity should be taken by this House to undertake the review. It is important that we not only have a review but that we have change. We ought to go beyond the business of examining and churning over matters, since the need

for change is apparent in many cases. Anyone who encounters local government, as a member of a local authority or as a Member of Parliament is aware of that.
The quarrel we have concerns the question whether the Welsh Assembly would necessarily be the best body to conduct this review. I do not declare any lack of confidence in those who would be elected to the Assembly. I have at least as much confidence in them as my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes). If such people were incompetent, that would be the price we pay for freedom, just as it is in this House or any other democratic Assembly. If these people were competent all that they would be demonstrating would be the high quality of our democracy.
The nature of the Assembly is not to be divided politically when faced with the question of local government reorganisation but rather to be divided on the basis of parochial self-interest. That is not a dishonourable function. We spend a great deal of our time here representing our constituents. Elsewhere we also act as their standard bearers, deliberately and honourably pursuing parochial and limited community and locality aims.
I do not believe that the Welsh Assembly, however serene, highly motivated or disinterested, would be able to avoid the duty, and therefore the consequence, of pursuing these parochial ends. That means that in terms of reviewing boundaries or the functions of local government the attitudes adopted by those in the Assembly will vary much more according to their locality than might be in the best interests of Wales.
I am not suggesting that there is some kind of automatic wisdom attached to bodies which are not elected, or that there is some kind of congenital wisdom about establishment organisations which have no direct accountability. I am saying that the combination of assessment by professional bodies—men and women of good will and of experience, whether we call them working parties, Royal Commissions, or whatever name they may have—and the political tests applied by people who not only have their partisan views to put forward but who realise they will have to defend that decision in subsequent elections in a democratic fashion, is much


to be preferred. The objective assessment, in which the parochial decision plays a minimal part, subjected to the political test, is the best way, in my view, of making decisions about local government.
One of the main reasons why the local government system that we have now is so incompetent is simply that the review was the first that had been seriously or substantially undertaken for eight years. Any future review, whoever it is undertaken by, will be a great deal more competent and may well enjoy a great deal more public favour throughout the United Kingdom, simply because we have a much better means of testing and a much more articulate public able to remember the system before 1973 and the system since 1973 and to compare the two. As a consequence of that comparison, an altogether better system will be produced.
There is no special magic about allocating that review power to the Welsh Assembly. I think that it could well diminish the prospect of developing an effective, democratic and efficient system of local government for Wales.
That is not a declaration of any lack of faith in democracy. I hope that no one in this House or anywhere else will accuse me of not having faith in democracy. However, democracy is a general term. It is open to many interpretations. Perhaps it is easier and better to say that I am in favour of freedom and free expression and of liberty and libertarian values than to use this word "democracy", which can mean one thing to the agent of repression in the Kremlin, another to an hon. Member of this House, another to a member of a trade union delegation, and yet another to someone in local government. However, it is no part of my argument that a Welsh Assembly would be incompetent or that democracy is incompetent.
In the coolest of judgment required, in the expertise of assessment required, in the original propositions required and in the original examination required, it is better to subject that dispassionate set of propositions to a political test and to make the changes in that fashion on the basis of the experience that we have gained since local government reorganisa-

tion, compared with the experience that we had before it.
In my view, the case on clause 12 and the options that we have before us rests not on a rejection of the necessity for a review but on the calculations of how best a review can be undertaken, who best to undertake it, and to what tests such a review ought to be subjected.

Mr. Fred Evans: I remind my hon. Friend that the thinking on devolution in Wales began in precisely that way many years ago. In spite of the monstrous proportions to which it has now grown in the envisaging of an Assembly, I was at the original meeting where what was envisaged was an indirectly elected council for Wales. However much people have run around waving pieces of paper since then, or have built a vast superstructure on to that original thinking, the use of experts for review purposes and the final political judgment resting where it should rest is in line with the original thinking on devolution in Wales by the Labour Party. That can be said beyond peradventure. It can be proved to the House by naming those who were present at the original meeting.

Mr. Kinnock: What was being talked of at that time, and much more recently, was a change in the system of accounability and a change in the system of democracy throughout the United Kingdom. The word "devolution" had not seriously been considered at that time. We are grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery for giving us a definition of devolution. It seems that it is to give the appearance of power to a regional, provincial or national assembly and simultaneously to hold the real reins of power in a central body. In that sense it is an hypocrisy as a system of government.
The reassurance that the hon. and learned Gentleman was prepared to offer is in contradiction to the view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) that conclusive power should be vested in locally accountable bodies to take final political decisions on executive suggestions. The hon. and learned Gentleman and many others say "Do not let us have that system. Let us have the appearance of localised power subject to final central decision. Let us say to those who have doubts about


devolution that that is the reassurance that we can offer. Let us say to those who are in favour of devolution 'Here is the appearance of power that we are prepared to award'."
If we want a change in local government, if we want greater accountability in local government, if we want the exertion of much more local control over local government, if we want local government to be more effective in its representation to central Government, and if we want the necessary changes in the system of financing local government—an issue that has been almost entirely excluded from our considerations in debating the review powers of the Assembly in Wales and one of much greater importance to the citizens of Wales than boundaries or powers, as it concerns how money is raised and on what it is spent—the need is universal wherever in the United Kingdom consideration is given to those matters.
The propositions that have been advanced for application in Scotland and Wales have been selective. In recognition of that fact, in recognition of the fact that the Assembly is not necessarily the right system to make a re-examination of local government as it would provoke the possibility of a major shift between Welsh interests and centralised interests if there were disagreement over the propositions to be made by the Assembly, the House should deny the Assembly review powers in so far as that requires a clause, leaving them to its discretion and timing if it is ever formed, and rely upon the fact that the Secretary of State will be sufficiently sensitive to the demands that it is supposed will be emanating from the national voice of Wales to pull the lever as and when required.
There is no need to insert into the Bill a regulation, a fiat, or a diktat that the exercise should take place. If devolution means anything, it means that the power to make such changes, suggestions and reviews should at least be vested in the Assembly.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I did not intend to take part in the debate but in view of the observations about me I must express a personal view. I did not take part in the debate on the Lords amendment when it first came before the House a few days ago.
It has been said that there is great anxiety about local government in Wales. I accept that. I do not intend to go into the merits of local government reorganisation.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the consideration of Lords Amendments to the Parliamentary Pensions Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Tinn.]

WALES BILL

Question again proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I think that you, Mr. Speaker, would accept, as will the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), that if anyone wishes to be popular as Secretary of State for Wales the last thing that he should enter into is local government reorganisation. With reluctance I found that it was inevitable that I should apply myself to that task. I found that a great deal of activity had taken place over several years and that there was plenty of good learning to be had from various documents which had been prepared by many intelligent and able people and by Royal Commissions.
It was inevitable that something had to be done. But what was most important—and I know that you, Mr. Speaker, and the right hon. Member for Anglesey also found this—was that there was enormous anviety among local government officials in Wales because they felt that a finality had to be reached. One therefore had to try to find a solution in order to restructure local government. Without that there would have been despair among local government officials in Wales about what was to happen to them.
If we reopen this question, when local government in Wales is settling down, with all its imperfections, we shall reopen all the miseries and anxieties that I found when I first came to office.
Every county council in Wales is totally opposed to the review of local government being placed in the hands of


the Assembly. Lord Heycock made that clear. He said that great anxiety was expressed by district councils. A review must come but it must come gradually. Local government must be given an opportunity to settle down. If the task is placed in the hands of the Assembly it will be in the hands of a body which has a vested interest and which will, during the time of the investigation, cause uncertainty in local government in Wales.
The general view is that there must he a period in which local government can settle itself. The implications of the structure and functions must be found out in due course. But local government must be given the opportunity to settle down so that it can discover what must be reviewed and changed.
The Under-Secretary of State referred to the opposition to local government reorganisation. Of course there was opposition on both sides of the House. Because there is stern opposition to a particular Bill which becomes an Act, one does not say that that Act must be reviewed. That would mean that the entire time of the Assembly or any Government body would be taken up in reviewing Acts passed by previous Governments. That argument is not good.
The Minister did not apply himself to the fact that clause 12 is unnecessary. If it was not in the Bill the Assembly could of its own volition review local government and report the result to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Alec Jones: I made that point in my speech. That is why I said the amendment was more objectionable than the deletion of clause 12.

Mr. Thomas: I understood the Under-Secretary to say that at the beginning. That was not the way I understood his argument to run, however. Does he accept, then, that if clause 12 was removed the Assembly would still have the right to review local government when it considered the time was right, and that it could report to the Secretary of State?

Mr. Alec Jones: I certainly accept that. I said so in my opening speech. That is not, however, what we are dealing with now. Our main point is that we want to put the duty on the Assembly because it

has such important local government functions.

Mr. Thomas: I am obliged to the Under-Secretary. The matter is now perfectly clear. Clause 12 is purposely included to give an instruction to the Assembly.
The Government have spoken in terms of this Bill setting up a democratic Assembly. It should therefore have the right to decide for itself what it should do. An instruction is being given by this House to the Assembly, however. As far as I can see it is the only real instruction in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) referred to it as peremptory command post from this House to the Assembly that it should review the structure of local government and report its conclusions to the Secretary of State, and that applies even though the Assembly already has the right to do it under the Bill.
Why have this peremptory command? Its presence in the Bill causes one to be suspicious of the motives behind it. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke pointed in his admirable speech to one or two of the suspicions that are felt, and they must be right. This provision is made for no other reason than to try to create some form of popularity for the Bill which would otherwise hardly be described as popular in Wales.
I should like to adopt, without reservation, the speech by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Davies). He speaks for the majority, certainly in the southern part of Wales. His speech was very similar to Lord Heycock's speech in another place. He spoke with an economy of words and firmly, and I believe that he put the truth about this matter. This provision is not required. It will cause uncertainty and it should be dropped.
There has already been a Division in this House and there was a majority of only one in favour of retaining the clause. That indicates that the House is deeply divided on the issue. Two more votes could have made all the difference. If they had been cast against the clause it would have been removed and we would not now be facing the problem.
The amendment in many ways is not perfect, but it is simple and it provides that the Secretary of State, this House and the other place shall decide on the


opportune time for a review. Until that has been decided, the Assembly will not exercise its rights, quite apart from clause 12. That appears to be sensible. The

amendment was supported by the hon. Member for Gower. I hope that there will be a majority in favour of it in the Division Lobby tonight.

Mr. Roy Hughes: It would be far more just and more democratic for a review of the structure of local government to be carried out by the elected Welsh Assembly rather than by the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas), however learned and charming he may be.
We know that the House of Lords originally tried to multilate the Bill with dozens of amendments. This House has now very wisely restored most of the position. Perhaps it is worth reminding their Lordships, as this is a Welsh Bill, that when they last clashed with Welshmen, in the early part of this century, they had their wings clipped. I hope that in the next Parliament we shall have a majority Labour Government that will wipe out the House of Lords. Certainly democracy in Britain would be stronger as a result of such a measure.
This reform of local government is vital. The Under-Secretary reminded us that all Labour Members disagreed profoundly with the local government legislation when it was going through Parliament. We know that there was much gerrymandering involved in it. There was waste and extravagance as a result of its implementation. There was duplication of functions. A loss of identity was suffered by many communities throughout Wales.
If further evidence is needed about the reorganisation of local government for England as well, it is provided on the Order Paper in Early-Day Motion No. 580, signed by very many Labour Members, backing the proposals of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, particularly that to restore the powers now lost to county boroughs throughout the country.
It is absolutely vital that the proposals contained in clause No. 12 should go through tonight. An elected Welsh Assembly is the body to draw up proposals for the reorganisation of local government. I imagine that it will be composed of people with a vast experience of local government, living and working in their own localities in Wales.
It is worth asking why their Lordships should continue to resist this proposal. The answer is that they are aware of a

certain weakness in the ranks of the Parliamentary Labour Party. They know that last week there was a majority of only one for the clause, whereas it should have been passed by a considerable majority. I find it rather nauseating to see Labour Members actually associating themselves with the House of Lords in this way. A small group of Labour Members representing Welsh constituencies have waxed eloquent, to the continuous "Hear, hears" of the Tory Benches. What is more, those Members have acted as unofficial Whips, advising and, indeed, persuading other Labour Members how to vote on certain proposals.
As I see it, it works like this. My hon. Friends who represent constituencies in, for instance, the north of England, feel that an elected Welsh assembly would give the people of Wales an unfair advantage over those in the north of England. There may be some justification for that view, particularly when we consider the economic depression that has affected the north of England for a long time. But the fact is that those Members in the north of England do not need much persuasion to vote against the Welsh Assembly, for the sort of reason I have illustrated, and particularly when those trying to persuade them are Members representing Welsh seats.
It was because of this sort of persuasion that the referendum clause was inserted into the Bill. Then they were not satisfied with that. They wanted the 40 per cent. provision as well. Now they want this provision on local government eliminated. As a result of their activities, it was passed by a majority of only one in the House last week.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. John Evans: My hon. Friend says that some Members from the North of England are not happy about the Bill. Certainly some of us from the North of England hope that it will he defeated by the Welsh people. But will he accept that the argument about local government reform is entirely different? The Welsh people's unhappiness with their own structure of local government is nothing compared with the unhappiness that the English people, particularly in the North of England, feel about their


structure of local government. What we want is a further reorganisation of local government in England and Wales, and the only body that can do that is a reconstituted Boundary Commission as authorised by this House. That is the only way in which we shall be able to maintain comparable levels of local government in England and Wales as we had for so many years.

Mr. Hughes: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend when he expresses the dissatisfaction of his constituents and many others about the reorganisation of local government. But he must understand that, whether for good or for evil, local government in Wales has in the past been reorganised on a separate basis from that of England. Some of us are quite happy that it should be done in that way.
We have been through these arguments very many times. We know that on this side of the House there has been much discussion in our ranks. There was a Royal Commission on the subject. There was agreement before the 1974 General Elections by Welsh Members on the need for an elected Welsh Assembly. The Labour Party conferences in Wales have repeatedly called for the creation of a Welsh Assembly. So has the Wales TUC.
It is worth reminding the House that Members such as my hon. Friends the Members for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), Aberdare (Mr. Evans) and Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) actually had in their election addresses that a Labour Government would create an elected Assembly in Wales. What, therefore, could be more logical than that a Labour Government when elected should actually introduce legislation along these lines and implement the promises made, including this provision on local government?
We have had arguments in the Labour Party over the years about such major issues as the Common Market, nuclear disarmament and German rearmament. But then it was always one section of the Labour movement ranged against another. In this argument about Welsh devolution and the reorganisation of local government, all sections of the Labour movement have been absolutely united. It is a different argument altogether.
There comes a time when individuals, however important they may feel themselves to be, must accept the decision-

making processes of the Labour movement. The alternative, if they cannot do that, is to consider their own personal positions within the Labour Party. On the other hand, I am all for tolerance on this issue of clause 12 and local government. Indeed, in the Labour Party we have always had the conscience clause. But if a Member's conscience takes such a turn in the lifetime of one Parliament, surely a quiet abstention could have salved that conscience. Instead some hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies have acted like a group of what I may call latter-day Donnellys in their attitude to their own Government's proposals. Their behaviour was recognised as such at the last conference of the Labour Party in Wales a couple of months ago, when delegate after delegate strode up to the rostrum to denounce them for their activities.
These are absolute facts. Whatever the views of these hon. Members might be on the creation of a Welsh Assembly, and on the reorganisation of local government, I remind them of what the attitude of some of their predecessors would have been. I am thinking of people such as Sir Harold Finch, the late Mr. Ness Edwards and Mr. Iorrie Thomas. They may have profoundly disagreed on some of these issues, but once the Labour movement had made up its united mind they would certainly be in the Lobby supporting the Labour Government. That is the profound difference.
We know, too, that the behaviour of these Members has already done immense harm to this Labour Government. The fall of the Scotland and Wales Bill led directly to the creation of the Lib-Lab pact, for instance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is absolutely true.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) will confine himself to the Lords amendment, it will enable other hon. Members to be called as well. Mr. Roy Hughes.

Mr. Hughes: On the question of the Lords amendments, and what should be the attitude of Labour Members to them, I am saying that the party to which they belong was built on loyalty and solidarity. It was these firm foundations which


created the career machine which the Labour Party now seems to have become.
I would have thought that tonight at least these hon. Members could let bygones be bygones and support the Government in the Lobby on this issue, to ensure that we get the majority that we certainly deserve.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for Wales will be grateful for that massive expression of support from the committee of public safety on the Labour Back Benches. I think that it would be perhaps asking rather much for him to accept the very cogent and closely argued case put forward by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). I thought that the hon. Member summarised very well the dilemma that we are in—the unsuitability of an elected Assembly to conduct a detailed recommendation for the reform of local government. I thought that the hon. Member was absolutely right when he said that the function of an elected Assembly is to approve, on political grounds, detailed recommendations drawn up by a judicial body.
It struck me that the speech which has dominated the debate was that of the much respected hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Davies). I think that I am right in saying that it was the very first time that he has expressed disagreement with the attitude taken by his Front Bench on this issue. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) said, the hon. Gentleman's speech must be taken with the utmost seriousness by all hon. Members on each side of the House.
Reference was made to the very gallant campaign conducted by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) on behalf of his country. I very well recall that campaign. He fought very valiantly for it, and he persuaded me to accompany him into the Lobby in revolt against the line which our party was taking.
I was just about to step into the "No" Lobby on that occasion when one of the Government Whips at the time—not, I hasten to add, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist), but some other Whip whom I shall not name

—came sidling up to me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Be a devil, name him."]—and asked "Are you going to vote for Nick's amendment?". I said "I thought he made out a very good case." I was told "You ought to know that there is much more to this than meets the eye. A lot of powerful interests are engaged in this." I, being a nervous fellow, did not want to get mixed up in that murky kind of business, so I kept out of the Lobby. I should say that there was not a word of truth in the allegation. It was merely a Whip doing his job extremely well. But that illustrates the kind of combination which occurs on these occasions.
A noble Friend of mine, who was new to these things and wished to preserve the identity of his county, asked me for advice on this matter. I told him "My dear chap, you won't stand a hope if you put forward even the most lucidly argued case as to why your county should retain its independence. What you must do is to get together with four or five other discontented groups and say 'I shall support you if you support me.'" He did, and to this day his county retains its identity. So do four other counties which had no better reasons for retaining their identities than many which lost them.
This kind of combination of disparate interests can go on in an elected Assembly if it is charged with a function which it should never have—that of making specific detailed recommendations about the reform of local government. As the hon. Member for Gower said, this is a matter in the first instance for a quasi-judicial body. Thereafter, by all means let the elected Assembly pronounce upon it. But it is because it seems to me that the amendment sent to us by another place neatly provides for this facility that I shall be voting in favour of it.
Everyone is saying that the reform of local government has been a complete and utter disaster. In my own part of the world, in the county of Clwyd, it has been a very great success. The present pattern of local government is an enormous improvement on its predecessor. The only undesirable feature is the overlapping of powers, particularly in the area of planning, a feature which was introduced in this House as a result of the kind of lobbying combinations to which I have referred.

Mr. Anderson: For good fraternal reasons I shall make only a brief comment on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes).

Hon. Members: Where is he?

Mr. Kinnock: Roy Robespierre.

Mr. Anderson: It struck me as being what my American friends would call "a way of influencing people without making friends". My hon. Friend said that all sections of the Labour movement in Wales were united in favour of devolution. If he were here, I would remind him that the bulk of individual constituency Labour parties in Wales are against this measure. I say no more than that.
Certainly, local government reorganisation played no part in the manifesto on which I was elected. Therefore, there is hardly a necessary relationship between views on local government reorganisation and views on devolution.
10.30 p.m.
Opening the date the Under-Secretary stated that there was a need for a review of local government in Wales, and that that need resulted from widespread dissatisfaction in the Principality with the Tory local government reform. If there is such dissatisfaction, I am not sure that it is nearly as profound as it was two or three years ago, when it was prompted by the high rates rises at the time.
My view is that there would be some form of dissatisfaction no matter what structure of local government had been adopted in Wales. What confidence can the Minister have that any alternative structure would have more general assent than the structure that resulted from the 1972 reorganisation? One could always, at any time, find a need for reorganisation as a result of dissatisfaction.
I was almost tempted to accept the near-Trotskyite view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). Trotsky's view was that there should be continuous revolution. My hon. Friend seems to want an adaptation of that—that there should be continuous reorganisation. I saw some merit in this. But if dissatisfaction is the test, why not have a similar reorganisation in England? It is a novel principle that one's own principles are determined by the degree

of longitude in which one finds oneself. That is what a philosopher would call a relative view of truth.
If local government is as sick as my hon. Friend suggested, why did this profound malaise not creep into the realisation of the Government until two years after they embarked upon the process of devolution and after they had said in clear terms in the White Paper that devolution would have no effect on local government?
Since there was this late inclusion of local government reorganisation, which has no necessary nexus with devolution, some cynical characters might ask the Government's motivation. Do we expect that the Government will use the prospect of local government reform in the referendum campaign to bring every discontented area into the pro-devolution net? Can we imagine the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) trudging up to the two cottages in the village of Gilfach Goch, asking the occupants whether they want reorganisation of local government, and if so, telling them that it is necessary for them to vote for this vast, expensive bureaucracy which is the only means of local government reorganisation?
The most simple and pointed question had been put by the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) who asked why, alone of all other matters which could have been included, is local government reorganisation included as a duty on the Assembly, when the order of the day in all other matters is discretion.

Mr. Alec Jones: It is perfectly true that we believe it right and proper to lay this as a duty on the Assembly. But it is far from the only duty. Clause 9 begins "the Assembly shall exercise"…The duty is that the Assembly will carry out many functions and proposals in the Bill.

Mr. Anderson: Clause 9 can be distinguished on the basis that it calls on the Assembly to exercise as regards Wales the functions given to Ministers of the Crown. That is a general rather than a specific duty such as the Government are proposing to include in Clause 12.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Member-satisfy my curiosity as to why the Gilfach Goch question could not have been


settled by all these able Ministers in the Welsh Office?

Mr. Anderson: We have had the West Lothian question and the West Glamorgan question. I hope that at this late stage we shall not embark on the Gilfach Goch question, attractive as that prospect is.
If there is a need for some review of local government, why should not my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales invite the Assembly to embark on that review by some other means? It could be done by a letter to the Assembly or by some state of the union message. Why is this uniquely singled out as a specific duty of this nature on the Assembly?
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) asked whether the Assembly would be competent to embark on a review of local government. The answer to that question, apart from the learned and weighty opinion of the Lord Chancellor in another place as to the competence of the Assembly, is that the Assembly has substantial competence in matters wholly unrelated to the devolved powers. If the Assembly so willed, it could set up a committee on foreign affairs. That is within its competence. How much more can it set up an inquiry into something which, on any reasonable definition, must be four square within its powers?
Yet despite all I have said, I find the House of Lords amendment defective in two ways. It is defective because it prevents the Assembly from embarking on a review of local government of its own volition. This is improper because the Assembly should be enabled to do so. The cat was let out of the bag by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales when he said that if clause 12 were not there the Assembly could in any event set out on this path. Why do we need clause 12?

Mr. Kinnock: For the referendum.

Mr. Anderson: Yes, for the referendum. One is impelled towards that one reason. That is the Government's motive in including this. The Assembly could embark on a review if it wanted to do so. Why have the Government gone to all this trouble to include this clause at a late stage?
I accept the argument that the Assembly is necessarily a partisan body. The likelihood of the Assembly making local representation less democratic is very real because the strategic powers are likely to float up to the Assembly if there is a system of unitary authorities. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery was in many ways disingenuous in suggesting that there is no time limit and that the Assembly could put off the review to the Ides of March or to the mid-80s if it wanted to do so. It is also disingenuous to suggest that there is a safeguard in the two-stage approach.
I also object to the Lords amendment because it gives the House of Lords a veto power over the Assembly setting out on the course of reorganisation. The provision says in terms that no order for review
shall be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament".
I think that it is wrong in principle that a non-elected hereditary body like the House of Lords should have a power of veto over an elected Assembly whether it should or should not embark on this particular venture.
For those two reasons, having found the amendment defective and having said that the Government should properly have taken out clause 12 altogether and accepted the original House of Lords amendment, in the best radical fashion I say:
A plague o' both your houses!
I shall abstain.

Mr. Raison: I suppose that it is very much on the cards that this may be the last evening that we spend in this present Parliament debating the subject of devolution. It is a strange thought. But it will not be the last evening that we shall spend in Parliament debating devolution, because, if the Bills go through, we shall be debating their consequences for a long time to come.
I am sure that if there is a Welsh Assembly, the atmosphere will be extremely pleasant. The debates on this Bill have always been rather charming. We have had occasional outbursts, like that of the Stalinist hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes), who seems to be making a bid to become Chief Whip of


the Labour Party, but on the whole the atmosphere has been pleasant.
I should like to take up one point made by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). He seemed to have some doubt about the House of Lords having an impact on the proceedings of the Welsh Assembly. But a number of his hon. Friends today seemed to find the House of Lords rather sensible. It was notable that twice this evening, on the Scotland Bill, a majority of the House agreed with the House of Lords, despite the wishes of the Government. Perhaps those who voted with the House of Lords might reflect that it has a role to play after all.
As an English Member, I do not want to embark on the rather intimate details that we have heard from some hon. Members. I want to make one or two brief points which have a United Kingdom background. We must remember the whole time that there is a United Kingdom background to pretty well every aspect of devolution.
The question has been asked: why, of all the different bodies that might be reformed, should there be the requirement to reform local government? There could have been a requirement to reform education, social work, health, planning, water, housing or goodness knows what, but local government has been plumped for. The answer is that it is thought that local government has the most political mileage.
The fact that it is a political gesture is proved by the curious ingredient that there is no timescale attached to it. To be required to carry out a review of local government and not to give a date by which the review has to be carried out is verging on the farcical. It shows that it is for political reasons only.
A more important point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards)—that it is absurd to carry out a review of local government without the possibility of reviewing the financial provisions for local government. The one lesson that we have learned during the last few years is that to attempt to reform local government without looking at finance at the same time is probably misconceived. To try to produce a

structure in Wales where the same would happen would be folly indeed.
It must be accepted—even the Minister must accept this if he is being honest—that it will not be within the competence of the Welsh Assembly to consider the future financial arrangements for local government. After all, they touch on the national tax system, questions of what to do about income tax and so on. That seems to be the most powerful argument against this proposal.
The only other point that I make—a point that has been the motif of many of our debates on both devolution Bills—is that we see again in the Government's scheme the possibilities of endless friction between the devolved Assembly and the House of Commons. After all, the Government are saying "Let the Welsh Assembly come up with its review of local government in Wales and present it in some way or other to the Secretary of State and to the House of Commons."
We know that there will be a temptation to come up with a radical and drastically different scheme—a scheme that may not be in line with the thinking of hon. Members here. The temptation to go for a more total and irresponsible reform that has no regard to the United Kingdom financial position will be very powerful. Therefore, we shall see yet again the possibility that the Assembly will say one thing, knowing perfectly well that the House will not go along with it. That is the grave danger we all see in this devolution system.
10.45 p.m.
The House of Lords has a pretty powerful logic behind its amendment. It is saying in effect that there is no merit, no point, in advancing proposals for the reform of local government unless there is a pretty good reason to suppose that such proposals will be accepted by the United Kingdom Parliament, which alone will be able to translate them into legislative action.
We are left once more with the absurd dichotomy between this executive devolution and the retention of the legislative power in the House of Commons. That is an absolutely cast-iron formula for failure. The best way we can support that point is by once again supporting the other place.

Mr. Ioan Evans: We have had a game of ping-pong with the other place and have gone over this ground to quite an extent. The previous Lords amendment on the matter was defeated in this House by one vote. The debate has ranged rather wide. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Davies) rightly tried to confine it to the amendment.
In our discussions on the Scotland and Wales Bill, when I said that local government would be affected I was told that in no way would it be affected by that Bill. It is true that it contained no equivalent to Clause 13, or Clause 12 as it has now become since Clause 1 was removed from this Bill.
In "Our Changing Democracy," the White Paper outlining their policy, the Government said:
The devolution Act will make no change in the structure of local government in Wales.
One cannot be more definite. That White Paper led to the Scotland and Wales Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), whom we shall very much miss in future Parliaments because he brings a great deal of thought to our discussions, said in the debates on that Bill that if we had had a different set-up we might not have had to deal with the matter in this way. I believe that the failure of the Government's proposals is that as an afterthought they decided that they must do something about local government, as reorganised by the previous Government, and said "We can't possibly tackle it. Let's give this power to the Assembly." I shall argue why we should not give it the power.
Do we need a major change of local government in Wales? It is debatable. Do we want to abolish the county councils or the district councils, or both? That is the question to which we must now address ourselves as a result of the creation of an Assembly, if the people decide in a referendum to have it.
It can perhaps be argued that there is a case. What we are doing in the proposals for a Welsh Assembly is to create another tier of government. We have the community councils, the 37 district councils, and the eight county councils, the Welsh Office, the Secretary of State and Members of Parliament, and on top of that we are to have an Assembly.
I think that we shall create a problem for democracy in Wales if there are elections for one authority after another. That will be the situation if elections have to be held for local government, for the Assembly, for the central Government and, of course, for the European Assembly. One can visualise a year in which there will be no elections, but in some years there will be two or three elections for these various authorities. If the Bill goes through, and if elections are to be held for the Assembly, for local government, for this Parliament and for the European Assembly, we shall have to address our minds to the question of providing State funds for the political parties. I think that the Conservative Party will find it difficult to finance all the various elections. I am certain that the Liberal and the Labour Parties will find it difficult to finance local government elections, in all their various stages, as well as having to finance elections for the other bodies to which I have referred.
Is there a need for a review? If so, is it urgent? Should the task be given to the Assembly? I do not believe that it should be, because we do not know what the Welsh people will decide. I believe that at the referendum they will turn down the idea of an Assembly. If the Government think that this is an urgent task that must be dealt with without delay and that the review body must be set up now, it is wrong to suggest that this job should be given to the Welsh Assembly. If the Government think that is vital to review the structure of local government, that is something that we can do without the judgment of the people on the merits whether they want an Assembly. I believe that when the issue is put before them the people will turn down the idea of having an Assemby.
If it is thought that having created an Assembly we much find something for it to do so let us give it the task of reviewing local government, I must tell the Government that that will not endear them to the people of Wales. I do not think that it will endear them to those who are at present in local government who have gone through one reorganisation and are not looking forward to another reform of local government so soon after the last one.
Another reason why I do not believe that the Assembly should be given this task is that we do not know who the Members will be. We do not know what their political complexion will be, which is relevant. The people selected to become Assemblymen may not have experience of local government. When the House of Commons wishes to bring about local government reform, we tend to set up commissions and to appoint to them people who have expertise in local government. We look at their recommendations, and decide whether to accept them. I think that we should look again at the proposal to give this job to a body on which there may not be people with local government experience.
But even if the people of Wales vote for an Assembly, if they vote for people with local government experience, and if there is not a hung Assembly where there is no majority party but a number of parties, leading to serious political compromises, the last thing that we should give the new Assembly is the task of reorganising local government. The Assembly will have to work with local government bodies, and yet the first task that it is being given is that of looking at the district and county councils and coming up with proposals possibly to do away with one body or the other, or, as most of us on this side of the House think, to alter both bodies.
Having gone through a major reorganisation not all that long ago, for the time being the counties and districts should be left alone. We have to wait and see what the weaknesses are. I agree with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that there should be an alteration in the distribution of some functions as between the districts and the counties, and certainly it is not just to get back votes that we find some places wanting to go into different authorities. But the Boundary Commission is looking at the boundary problems, so that is not relevant to the functions of the Assembly.
Reference has been made to the noble lord, Lord Heycock, who has considerable experience of local government. On this issue, he said in the other place:
When I spoke on Second Reading, I gave a clear indication that the eight Welsh counties of Wales, of which I am privileged to be the President, were opposed to the Assembly

reorganising local government."—Official Report, House of Lords, 24th July 1978, Vol. 395, c. 665.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. Is the hon. Member quoting a Minister?

Mr. Evans: No. I am quoting the words of a noble Lord in the other place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is out of order.

Mr. Evans: Then perhops I may paraphrase what the noble Lord said. He was saying that the eight Welsh counties were unanimous in regretting that a clause had been put into the Bill giving power to the Welsh Assembly to review the organisation of local government.
There is a great depth of feeling not amongst the county councils alone but amongst the district councils that it is wrong for the Welsh Assembly as its first task to be given the job of reorganising local government.
It may be argued that Government supporters have a vested interest in maintaining the present counties and districts. But we have to bear in mind that the Welsh Assembly would have a vested interest in making certain recommendations. As my right hon. Friend for Anglesey said, we cannot contemplate for a lengthy period in Wales the continuance of all the existing bodies with a Welsh Assembly on top of them. If anything means the creation of a bureaucracy, that does.
If we had gone about this differently and decided to have a top tier authority for Wales with a unitary authority underneath, that would have made sense. But that is not the Government's proposal. Because the Conservative Administration reorganised local government, the present Government have tried to set aside the whole question of further reorganisation. That is why I believe these proposals have a basic weakness and why I should have preferred the deletion of the clause. The Secretary of State has said that we do not need to provide for it in the Bill. The Secretary of State can give the Assembly power to review local government if it so desires. Recognising that it is not essential to do it, rather than have a constitutional crisis with the Lords at this stage, though we might choose


another time, I believe that this amendment should be accepted.
The amendment has this merit. We do not know what will be the decision of the people of Wales. If they decide to have an Assembly, rather than tell it what it should do, we should consult it. After all, we are talking about devolution. We are talking about consultation, not dictation. If the Assembly decides that it wants to undertake the task of reorganising local government, we can look at it afresh and, if it is the will of this House, we can make a decision.
In such an event, I should still oppose it. I do not think that an Assembly of this kind is the proper body to review local government. But that would be a more rational approach to this matter. The Government have gone about it in the wrong way. There are those of us who believe in devolution and who want to bring government nearer to the people. But we shall not do that if we abolish eight counties and take all the administration down to Cardiff. That is not devolution. It is centralisation.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Alec Jones: By leave of the House. I begin by repeating what I said in my opening remarks—that it would be possible for the elected Welsh Assembly to carry out a local government review even if there were no clause 12. There is a case to be made for that, and it has been made by some of my hon. Friends. That is not the option before the House.
At present I am concentrating upon the option before the House. We are asked to agree that the elected Welsh Assembly should be able to carry out a review and report on local government in Wales only after an order has been made by the Secretary of State, subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses. The idea that a review of local government in Wales, to be carried out by a democratically-elected Assembly, should be dependent on the votes of a non-elected chamber is a strange democratic concept. Of the 109 votes in the other place, which brought this option before us, 66 came from hereditary Members. I do not believe that that proposition has a healthy democratic background.
I deal with our reasons for believing that it is necessary to have clause 12 in

the Bill. The White Paper of 3rd August 1976 says:
The Government will ask the Assembly to consider and report, after appropriate consultations, on future local government structure in Wales in the context of the Assembly's own new responsibilities for the whole of Wales.
We believe it right that we should give the Assembly the duty to review local government rather than that it should be a casual request which the Assembly might choose to do off its own bat. We believe that the Assembly will have been given substantial local government functions. We have only to look at schedule 2 to see the wide range of responsibilities which it will have. Accordingly it is right that it should be the body to which my right hon. and learned Friend could refer for advice as to how local government might best be organised in Wales, if that is considered to be necessary.
It has been said on several occasions that having the threat of review hanging over local government will create a great degree of uncertainty. However, many of my hon. Friends have admitted that there are anomalies in boundaries and functions which ought to be changed. As long as these exist there will be some degree of uncertainty.
If I had to make a straight choice between the uncertainty that some say is present and allowing the anomalies and defects of the present system to continue for another six years or 10 years, I should prefer to live with the uncertainty. It is true that there are other ways of proceeding, but six years have passed and the anomalies continue. It is because we do not find the time to do many things—

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Nonsense.

Mr. Jones: That is not nonsense. If we are to wait six years or 10 years before some of the anomalies in functions and boundaries are corrected, that is asking the people of Wales to put up with too much for too long.
My noble Friend Lord Heycock has received due acclaim from quarters from which I suspect he would least expect it. I appreciate and value the experience that my noble Friend has had in local government, but there are other views on local government in Wales. It has been trumpeted forth that the county councils hold a certain view, but it is


equally true that the district councils in Wales do not hare that view.

Mr. Kinnock: Mine does.

Mr. Jones: It may be the odd man out. I can understand that. There are odd men out throughout the world. Howevr, it is not true that the whole of local government in Wales is so in love with the present system that it is fearful of the consequences of clause 12. Certainly the district councils of the Principality would say that it is right and proper that someone should review local government and make a report. It is my view—obviously some do not agree—that the Assembly would be a better body to do it than any other body now available.

Mr. Anderson: Is my hon. Friend seriously arguing that we can envisage a golden age in which dissatisfaction with the structure of local government will not be apparent?

Mr. Jones: I have long given up hope of attaining that golden age, but it is still an aspiration in the minds of a good many. It is true that no one is able to give a guarantee that any system of local government or national government will be welcomed with acclaim throughout the country, but it is the height of folly for us to tolerate a form and structure of local government in Wales that we know and admit to be faulty in respect of functions and boundaries. Therefore, it is right and proper that we should proceed with the clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) thinks that the people of Wales will reject devolution. If that is his view and he is right, we need not get into a panic about clause 12 or any other clause. I believe that he is afraid because he thinks that the Welsh people will accept devolution.
I consider devolution to be right. I say that having spent three years in the Welsh Office. I am now more convinced that it is right than when I took office. If Conservative Members who laugh had had experience in government and had

travelled throughout Wales, they would realise that devolution is desirable. They would realise that it is possible to have a better system of government for Wales than we have at present. It is possible to have a more democratic system of government. Devolution will bring that about, and clause 12 will enable us to have a healthier and better structure of local government in Wales.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Does the Minister agree that the reason why the Welsh electorate is not satisfied with Welsh local government reorganisation is its loss of identity? The Secretary of State is a Cardiganshire man. People will perhaps ask in the future what a Cardy is. It is essential that we should have a review of local government. Perhaps there would be no need to change the structure but perhaps just to change the name. Instead of calling Dyfed a county council perhaps we should call it a regional authority and give back the identity to Cardiganshire and call it Cardiganshire County Council.

Mr. Alec Jones: I do not believe that a rose
by any other name would smell as sweet".
There are a variety of reasons for dissatisfaction with local government in Wales. In some quarters that is thought to be because of a loss of identity. I do not believe that there is any fear that anyone will mistake the quality of a Cardy. We should not worry about that. The constituency of the hon. Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Howells) experiences considerable trouble, not just about boundaries but about the functions and the dichotomy of power and control between the county and district councils. His part of the country is one from which I receive strong complaints about the necessity for a review of local government in Wales.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 271.

Division No. 315]
AYES
[11.12 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Beith, A. J.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bain, Mrs Margaret
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood


Ashley, Jack
Burnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)


Ashton, Joe
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Bidwell, Sydney


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Bates, Alf
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Bean, R. E.
Blenkinsop, Arthur




Boardman, H.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Orbach, Maurice


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Ovenden. John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Palmer, Arthur


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Pardoe, John


Bradford, Rev Robert
Heffer, Eric S.
Park, George


Bradley, Tom
Henderson, Douglas
Parry, Robert


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hooley, Frank
Pavitt, Laurie


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hooson, Emlyn
Pendry, Tom


Buchan, Norman
Horam, John
Penhaligon, David


Buchanan, Richard
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Perry, Ernest


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Prescott, John


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Huckfield, Les
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Price, William (Rugby)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Radice, Giles


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Carmichael, Neil
Hunter, Adam
Reid, George


Carter, Ray
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cartwright, John
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Clemitson, Ivor
Janner, Greville
Robinson, Geoffrey


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cohen, Stanley
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Coleman, Donald
John, Brynmor
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Colquhoun Ms Maureen
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rooker, J. W.


Concannon, Rt Hon John
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Roper, John


Corbett, Robin
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rose, Paul B.


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Crawford, Douglas
Judd, Frank
Rowlands, Ted


Crawshaw, Richard
Kerr, Russell
Sandelson, Neville


Cronin, John
Kilfedder, James
Sedgemore, Brian


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Lambie, David
Selby, Harry


Cryer, Bob
Lamborn, Harry
Sever, John


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Lamond, James
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Davidson, Arthur
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lee, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Litterick, Tom
Silverman, Julius


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Luard, Evan
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Dempsey, James
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)


Dewar, Donald
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Snape, Peter


Doig, Peter
Mabon, Rt Hon Or J. Dickson
Spearing, Nigel


Dormand, J. D.
McCartney, Hugh
Spriggs, Leslie


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stallard, A. W.


Duffy, A. E. P.
McElhone, Frank
Steel, Rt Hon David


Dunnett, Jack
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stoddart, David


Eadie, Alex
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Stott, Roger


Edge, Geoff
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Strang, Gavin


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Maclennan, Robert
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


English, Michael
Madden, Max
Swain, Thomas


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Magee, Bryan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Magulre, Frank (Fermanagh)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Faulds, Andrew
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thompson, George


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thome, Stan (Preston South)


Flannery, Martin
Meacher, Michael
Tierney, Sydney


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Tilley, John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mikardo, Ian
Tinn, James


Forrester, John
Miltan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tomlinson, John


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Tomney, Frank


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Tomey, Tom


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Molloy, William
Urwin, T. W.


Freud, Clement
Molyneaux, James
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wainwright, Edwin (Deanne V)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


George, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Morton, George
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Ginsberg, David
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Ward, Michael


Golding, John
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Watkins, David


Gould, Bryan
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Watkinson, John


Gourlay, Harry
Newens, Stanley
Watt, Hamish


Graham, Ted
Noble, Mike
Weetch, Ken


Grant, John (Islington C)
Oakes, Gordon
Weitzman, David


Grocott, Bruce
Ogden, Eric
Wellbeloved, James


Hardy, Peter
O'Halloran, Michael
Welsh, Andrew







White, James (Pollok)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Whitehead, Phillip
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Whitlock, William
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)



Wigley, Dafydd
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Wise, Mrs Audrey
Mr. James Hamilton and


Williams, Alan Lee (Horneh'ch)
Woodall, Alec
Mr. Frank R. White.


Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Wool, Robert





NOES


Abse, Leo
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Luce, Richard


Adley, Robert
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
McCrindle, Robert


Aitken, Jonathan
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macfarlane, Neil


Alison, Michael
Fookes, Miss Janet
MacGregor, John


Arnold, Tom
Forman, Nigel
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Fox, Marcus
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Awdry, Daniel
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Baker, Kenneth
Fry, Peter
Madel, David


Banks, Robert
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Bell, Ronald
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marten, Neil


Bendall, Vivian
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mates, Michael


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Gllmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Mather, Carol


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Maude, Angus


Benyon, W.
Glyn, Dr Alan
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Berry, Hon Anthony
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mawby, Ray


Biffen, John
Goodhart, Philip
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodhew, Victor
Mayhew, Patrick


Blaker, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Body, Richard
Gorst, John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mills, Peter


Bottomley, Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Miscampbell, Norman


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Grieve, Percy
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Griffiths, Eldon
Moate, Roger


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grist, Ian
Monro, Hector


Brittan, Leon
Grylls, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Brotherton, Michael
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan, Geraint


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hannam, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Buchanan-Smith, Allck
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Neave, Alrey


Buck, Antony
Haselhurst, Alan
Nelson, Anthony


Budgen, Nick
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Neubert, Michael


Bulmer, Esmond
Hawkins, Paul
Newton, Tony


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hayhoe, Barney
Normanton, Tom


Carlisle, Mark
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Nott, John


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Heseltine, Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Channon, Paul
Hicks, Robert
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Churchill, W. S.
Higgins, Terence L.
Osborn, John


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hodgson, Robin
Page, John (Harrow West)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Holland, Philip
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Clarke, Kenneth (Ruchcliffe)
Hordern, Peter
Page, Richard (Workington)


Clegg, Walter
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Parkinson, Cecil


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pattle, Geoffrey


Cope,John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Perclval, Ian


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Corrie, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pink, R. Bonner


Costain, A. P.
Hurd, Douglas
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Critchley, Julian
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Price, David (Eastieigh)


Crouch, David
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Crowder, F. P.
James, David
Ralson, Timothy


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd iW'df'd)
Rathbone, Tim


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rees, Peter (Dover ft Deal)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutstord)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Jopling, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhodes James, R.


Drayson, Burnaby
Kershaw, Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kimball, Marcus
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Durant, Tony
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ridsdale, Julian


Dykes, Hugh
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kinnock, Neil
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Elliott, Sir William
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Emery, Peter
Knox, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lamont, Norman
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Royle, Sir Anthony


Evans, John (Newton)
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Sainsbury, Tim


Eyre, Reginald
Lawrence, Ivan
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lawson, Nigel
Scott, Nicholas


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fell, Anthony
Lloyd, Ian
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Loveridge, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)







Shepherd, Colin
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Shersby, Michael
Stokes, John
Walters, Dennis


Silvester, Fred
Stradling Thomas, J.
Warren, Kenneth


Sims, Roger
Tapsell, Peter
Weatherill, Bernard


Sinclair, Sir George
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Wells, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Tebbit, Norman
Whitney, Raymond


Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Temple-Morris, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Speed, Keith
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Winterton, Nicholas


Spence, John
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Townsend, Cyril D.
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Trotter, Neville
Younger, Hon George


Sproat, Iain
van Straubenzee, W. R.



Stainton, Keith
Vaughan, Or Gerard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:



Stanbrook,Ivor
Viggers, Peter
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Stanley, John
Wakeham, John
Mr. Michael Roberts.


Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being more than three hours after the commencement of Proceedings, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [18th July], to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business.

The Lords do not insist on their amendments in page 14, line 29, page 14, line 37, page 14, line 41, page 19, line 28; their first amendment in page 62, line 42, their amendments in page 63, line 31, page 64, line 14 and page 71, line 35, to which the Commons have dis-

agreed, but propose amendments in lieu thereof:

Clause 37

INDUSTRIAL AND ECONOMIC GUIDELINES

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 14, leave out lines 29 to 35.

Motion made, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Question put forthwith—

The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 273.

Division No. 316]
AYES
[11.28 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)


Anderson, Donald
Cohen, Stanley
Faulds, Andrew


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Coleman, Donald
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Ashley, Jack
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)


Ashton, Joe
Concannon, Rt Hon John
Flannery, Martin


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Corbett, Robin
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cowans, Harry
Ford, Ben


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Forrester, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Crawford, Douglas
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Crawshaw, Richard
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Bates, Alt
Cronin, John
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Bean, R. E.
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Freud, Clement


Beith, A. J.
Cryer, Bob
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
George, Bruce


Bidwell, Sydney
Dalyell, Tam
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Davidson, Arthur
Ginsberg, David


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Da vies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Golding, John


Boardman, H.
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Gould, Bryan


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Gourlay, Harry


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Deakins, Eric
Graham, Ted


Boltomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
de Freltas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Grocott, Bruce


Bradley, Tom
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dempsey, James
Hardy, Peter


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dewar, Donald
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Buchan, Norman
Doig, Peter
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Buchanan, Richard
Dormand, J. D.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hayman, Mrs Helena


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dunnett, Jack
Heffer, Eric S.


Campbell, Ian
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Henderson, Douglas


Canavan, Dennis
Eadie, Alex
Hooley, Frank


Cant, R. B.
Edge, Geoff
Hooson, Emlyn


Carmichael, Neil
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Horam, John


Carter, Ray
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
English, Michael
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Cartwright, John
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Huckfield, Les


Clemitson, Ivor
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)




Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Molloy, William
Snape, Peter


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Spearing, Nigel


Hunter, Adam
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Spriggs, Leslie


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stallard, A. W.


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Morton, George
Steel, Rt Hon David


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Stoddart, David


Janner, Grevilie
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Stott, Roger


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Newens, Stanley
Strang, Gavin


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Noble, Mike
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oakes, Gordon
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


John, Brynmor
Ogden, Eric
Swain, Thomas


Johnson, James (Hull West)
O'Halloran, Michael
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Orbach, Maurice
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Ovenden, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Palmer, Arthur
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pardoe, John
Thompson, George


Judd, Frank
Park, George
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Kerr, Russell
Parry, Robert
Tierney, Sydney


Kilfedder, James
Pavitt, Laurie
Tilley, John


Lamble, David
Pendry, Tom
Tomlinson, John


Lamborn, Harry
Penhallgon, David
Tomney, Frank


Lamond, James
Perry, Ernest
Torney, Tom


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Prescott, John
Urwin, T. W.


Lee, John
Price, C. (Lewlshain W)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Price, William (Rugby)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Radice, Giles
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Litterick, Tom
Reid, George
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Loyden, Eddie
Richardson, Miss Jo
Ward, Michael


Luard, Evan
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Watkins, David


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Watkinson, John


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Watt, Hamish


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Robinson, Geoffrey
Weetch, Ken


McCartney, Hugh
Roderick, Caerwyn
Weitzman, David


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wellbeloved, James


McElhone, Frank
Rodgers, St Hon William (Stockton)
Welsh, Andrew


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Rooker, J. W.
White, James (Pollok)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Roper, John
Whitehead, Phillip


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Rose, Paul B.
Whitlock, William


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wigley, Dafydd


Maclennan, Robert
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Madden, Max
Sandelson, Neville
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Magee, Bryan
Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Selby, Harry
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Mallalleu, J. P. W.
Sever, John
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Marks, Kenneth
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Woodall, Alec


Maynard, Miss Joan
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Woof, Robert


Meacher, Michael
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Mikardo, Ian
Silverman, Jullus



Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Skinner, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Mr. James Tinn and


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)
Mr. Frank R. White.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Brittan, Leon
Critchley, Julian


Adley, Robert
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Crouch, David


Altken, Jonathan
Brooke, Hon Peter
Crowder, F. P.


Alison, Michael
Brotherton, Michael
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Arnold, Tom
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bryan, Sir Paul
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Awdry, Daniel
Buck, Antony
Drayson, Burnaby


Baker, Kenneth
Budgen, Nick
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Banks, Robert
Bulmer, Esmond
Durant, Tony


Bell, Ronald
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Dykes, Hugh


Bendall, Vivian
Carlisle, Mark
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Channon, Paul
Elliott, Sir William


Benyon, W.
Churchill, W. S.
Emery, Peter


Biffen, John
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Biggs-Davison, John
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Eyre, Reginald


Blaker, Peter
Clarke, Kenneth (Ruchcliffe)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Body, Richard
Clegg, Walter
Fairgrieve, Russell


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Farr, John


Bottomley, Peter
Cope, John
Fell, Anthony


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Cormack, Patrick
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Corrie, John
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bradford, Rev Robert
Costain, A. P.
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Bralne, Sir Bernard
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles







Fookes, Miss Janet
Le Marchant, Spencer
Ridsdale, Julian


Forman, Nigel
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Fox, Marcus
Lloyd, Ian
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Loveridge, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fry, Peter
Luce, Richard
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
McCrindle, Robert
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Macfarlane, Nell
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
MacGregor, John
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sainsbury, Tim


Glyn, Dr Alan
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Scott, Nicholas


Goodhart, Philip
Madel, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Goodhew, Victor
Marshall. Michael (Arundel)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Goodlad, Alastair
Marten, Nell
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Gorst, John
Mates, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mather, Carol
Shepherd, Colin


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Maude, Angus
Shersby, Michael


Grieve, Percy
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Silvester, Fred


Griffiths, Eldon
Mawby, Ray
Sims, Roger


Grist, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sinclair, Sir George


Grylls, Michael
Mayhew, Patrick
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Peter
Speed, Keith


Hampson, Dr Keith
Miscampbell, Norman
Spence, John


Hannam, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Moate, Roger
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Haselhurst, Alan
Molyneaux, James
Sproat, Iain


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Monro, Hector
Stainton, Keith


Hawkins, Paul
Montgomery, Fergus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hayhoe, Barney
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Stanley. John


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
More, Jasoer (Ludlow)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Heseltine, Michael
Morgan, Geraint
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hicks, Robert
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Stokes, John


Higgins, Terence L.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hodgson, Robin
Neave, Airey
Tapsell, Peter


Holland, Philip
Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Hordern, Peter
Neubert, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Newton, Tony
Tebbit, Norman


Howell, David (Guildford)
Normanton, Tom
Temple-Morris, Peter


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Nott, John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Onslow, Cranley
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Townsend, Cyril D.


Hurd, Douglas
Osborn, John
Trotter, Neville


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, John (Harrow West)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


James, David
Page, Richard (Workington)
Viggers, Peter


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Parkinson, Cecil
Wakeham, John


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinslead)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Percival, Ian
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Jopling, Michael
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Walters, Dennis


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pink, R. Bonner
Warren, Kenneth


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Weatherill, Bernard


Kershaw, Anthony
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wells, John


Kimball, Marcus
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Whitney, Raymond


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Raison, Timothy
Wiggin, Jerry


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rathbone, Tim
Winterton, Nicholas


Knight, Mrs Jill
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Knox, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Lamont, Norman
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Younger, Hon George


Langlord-Holt, Sir John
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)



Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rhodes James, R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lawrence, Ivan
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Lawson, Nigel
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments nos. 3 to 13 disagreed to.

Amendments made in lieu thereof:

In page 52, leave out lines 20 and 21.

Page 52, leave out line 30 and insert—
'and 13.
The functions under section 14 except so far as exercisable in relation to property held by or on behalf of the Assembly or by a company all of whose shares are so held or

by a wholly owned subsidiary of such a company.
The functions under section 19(7) and (8).'

In page 54, line 22, leave out 'paragraphs 16(3) and 48' and insert 'paragraph 16(3)'.

In page 54, leave out lines 26 to 31 and insert—
'The functions under paragraphs 46 to 50 of Schedule 3 so far as exercisable by virtue of representations made by excepted statutory undertakers.


The powers under paragraph 53 of Schedule 3 so far as their exercise is incidental to functions which remain exercisable by a Minster of the Crown.'

Transfer line 22 on page 52 to 38 on page 54 to Part VIII of Schedule 2 to the Bill.

In page 84, line 28, at end insert—
'(3) The Welsh Assembly shall publish each report received by it under this paragraph.'

In page 85, line 13, leave out 'in section 3(1)(e)' and insert '(1) In subsection (1)(e) of section 3'

In page 85, line 16, at end insert—
'(2) At the end of subsection (8) of that section there shall be added the words "; and the Welsh Assembly shall publish every report made to it under that provision."'.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Lords amendment no. 14 disagreed to.

Amendments made in lieu thereof:

In page 25, line 4, leave out from first 'Assembly' to 'provide' in line 5 and insert
'a Minister of the Crown may by order'.

In page 25, line 6, leave out 'it' and insert he'.

In page 25, line 10, leave out 'Assembly' and insert 'Minister making the order'.

In page 25, line 12, leave out from 'except' to end of line 13 and insert
'at the request of the Assembly and after the Assembly has consulted'.

In page 25, line 15, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. John Smith.]

Lords amendment no. 15 agreed to.

The Lords insist on their amendments in page 28, line 23, page 64, line 21, and page 76, line 9, to which the Commons have disagreed.

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth not insist on their disagreement to Lords amendments in page 28, line 23, page 64, line 21, and page 76, line 9.

Question put and agreed to.

The Lords disagree to the Commons amendments to the words restored to the Bill in page 52, line 20, page 52, line 22, page 52, line 30, page 54, line 23, page 54, line 26, page 84, line 28, page 85, line 13, and page 85, line 16.

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth not insist on its amend-

ments to the words restored to the Bill to which the Lords have disagreed, in page 52, line 20, page 52, line 22, page 52, line 30, page 54, line 23, page 54, line 26, page 84, line 28, page 85, line 13, and page 85, line 16.

Question put and agreed to.

The Lords do not insist on their second amendment in page 75, line 29, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof:

Clause 15

STANDING ORDERS

Lords amendment: No. 19 in page 7, line 18, at end insert—
( ) The standing orders shall include provision for the admission of the public to meetings of the Assembly and of its committees.

Amendment to Lords amendment made:

leave out 'for the admission of the public' and insert
'as to the circumstances in which the public may be admitted'.

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.

The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 68, line 29; on their two amendments in page 68, line 30; or on their amendment in page 69, line 3, to which the Commons have disagreed but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof:

Schedule 9

INTERVENTION BY SECRETARY OF STATE IN PLANNING MATTERS

Lords amendment: No. 18, in page 69, line 3, leave out "concerning Wales" and insert
which concerns Wales (whether or not it also concerns any other part of the United Kingdom) but".

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with Lords amendment no. 18, in lieu of their amendment in page 69, line 3.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their amendments in lieu of another of their amendments to the Wales Bill disagreed to by the Commons: Mr. Leon Brittan, Mr. Alec Jones, Mr. Jim Marshall, Mr. John Morris, and Mr. John Stradling Thomas; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. John Morris.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to one of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

PARLIAMENTARY PENSIONS BILL

Lords amendments considered.

New Clause A

WIDOWERS' PENSIONS

Lords amendment: no. 1, after clause 5, in page 14, line 14, at end insert new clause A—

"A.—(1) In section 14 of the Act of 1972 (pensions for certain widowers), after subsection (1) (qualifying conditions) there shall be inserted as subsection (1A)—
(1A) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the widower of a woman who was a Member of the House of Commons at any time after the passing of the Act of 1978 shall, if at the time of her death she fulfilled any of the conditions specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) above (as it apples in her case), be entitled to receive a pension under this section—

(a) as from the day following the date of her death if at the time of her death he had attained the age of sixty-five years or was incapable by reason of bodily or mental infirmity of earning his own living; or
(b) where the preceding paragraph does not apply, as from the time when he attains the age of sixty-five years or, before attaining that age, becomes incapable as mentioned in that paragraph;

and subsection (1) above shall not apply in the case of a widower to whom this subsection applies.

(2) In the case of a widower to whom subsection (1A) of section 14 of the Act of 1972 applies, subsections (3) and (4) of that section (Trustee's power to terminate or restore pension in certain events) shall have effect with the following modifications, that is to say—

(a) the references to subsection (1) of that section shall be read as references to subsection (1A) thereof; and
(b) so much of subsection (3) as relates to the termination of a widower's pension in the event of his ceasing to be incapable as there mentioned shall not apply after the widower has attained the age of sixty-five years;

and where his pension has been terminated under subsection (3) of that section on his ceasing to be incapable as there mentioned before attaining the age of sixty-five, that fact shall not affect his entitlement to the pension as from the time when he attains that age."

11.49 p.m.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
In speaking to this amendment, I shall also speak to amendments nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, which are consequential. These amendments, inserted by the Government at Committee stage, in another place, are intended to improve the pensions for widowers in the way suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and other hon. Members when we discussed the matter in this House.
At present, the widower of a lady Member or office-holder receives a pension only if he was dependent on his wife at the time of her death. No such dependency is required in the case of widows, although all Members pay the same contributions to the basic parliamentary scheme. As a result of these amendments, the dependency test for widowers will be removed. Widowers who are over 65 at the time of their wives' death, or who later reach age 65, will receive the same pension entitlement as widows. In addition, widowers under 65 will receive a pension if, at the time of the Member's death, they are incapacitated to the extent that they cannot earn their own living or if they subsequently become so incapacitated.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will welcome these amendments since their provisions are in line with those she herself suggested. They introduce into the Parliamentary Pensions Scheme the concept of a "survivor's pension", which, as she reminded us, is already a feature of the new State scheme.
As my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal explained in another place, these changes to the Parliamentary Pensions Scheme are also consistent with the conclusion reached in the 1976 report of the Occupational Pensions Board on equal status for men and women in occupational pension schemes. The Occupational Pensions Board considered that, while progress towards equality was desirable, progress should be made only as resources permitted. In the case of this particular step towards equality which we are considering this evening, the cost will be negligible.
I therefore hope that the House will readily agree to these amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): Order. I inform the House that the amendment involves privilege.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I should have been very sad, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you had not given me this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend very warmly for fulfilling a promise that he made to me in Committee in the Commons when I moved my amendments on the widower's pension. He told me then that he could not give a guarantee that the Government would be able to accept them but that he would consider them very seriously. That he has done, and he has handsomely responded to my amendments by putting them in full, though in a technically more correct form, I understand, in another place.
I echo what my right hon. Friend said. This is an important step forward on the road to sex equality—not only women's rights, but the rights of both sexes and the equalisation of those rights. I hope that this is only the beginning and that we shall move forward systematically in every pension scheme towards the concept of a survivor's benefit which recognises the rights of both sexes. I thank my right hon. Friend very warmly.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said and make one other point. I do not want to be pernickety, but my copy of the Lords amendments paper shows that the amendment is being made in page 14 of the Bill. When I look at the Bill, it find that it appears to be made in page 6. This is an amendment of such value that I would not want it to fail in its purpose by being put in a part of the Bill where it does not make sense.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should have advised the House that with Lords amendment no. 1 we are taking Lords amendments nos. 2 to 5. I do not know whether any hon. Member wishes to speak to those amendments.

Mr. Michael English: Perhaps I may ask one simple question. We are not actually introducing equality, are we? A widower gets his pension only if he attains the age of 65. I think that a widow gets her pension before that.

Mrs. Castle: Yes.

Mr. John Smith: My hon. Friend is quite right. As was pointed out, this is no more than a step towards equality.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 5 agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Lords amendments nos. 3 to 5 involve privilege. I shall see that the necessary insertion is made in the Journal in relation to privilege.

Clause 8

CHILDREN'S PENSIONS

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 10, line 32, at end insert
of the Act of 1972

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a drafting amendment which contains no implications of substance. Its intention is to bring consistency to the expression in the clause, which, as hon. Members will remember, was introduced by the Government in Committee in this House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11

RECKONABLE SERVICE

Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 12, line 21, leave out from "1964" to end of line 24 and insert
for the words 'ten years' there shall be substituted the words 'fifteen years'.

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I am sure the House will agree that the intention of noble Lords in another place in confirming the amendment was entirely understandable. Many of them have reason to feel strongly—indeed, to feel more strongly than Members of this House—that those who have ceased to be Members in recent years have suffered from the low pay and absence of pension arrangements that prevailed in this House

for far too long. While many such Members now receive a pension in respect of their former service as M.P.s, it is in many cases based on considerably less than the full service they gave to the House.
But there are major difficulties about improving the lot of those who are no longer contributing to the basic scheme for Members. There is, first, the fact that to extend the extra five years of back service credit to former Members would be directly contrary to the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body. I put forward the view during Second Reading and in Committee—and I think it was generally, if reluctantly, accepted by hon. Members—that the present Bill represented a package and should be regarded as such.
One can add to a package, as we have done for widowers and children, if there is a strong case. But to go directly against a specific recommendation of the Review Body is, I think, a different matter and can only undermine the Review Body's status. I know from the Second Reading and Committee debates in this House that some hon. Members would have liked the Bill to go further in a number of respects, but they accepted that because the Bill was a package their particular wishes could not be satisfied.
There is also the problem of cost. Practically no change in the parliamentary scheme would give rise to large additional costs, because the scheme is a small one. But the cost of allowing up to five extra reckonable years to all who have retired since 1965—and this I understand, is the intention of the noble Lord who moved the amendment—would add £1 million to the £1¼ million capital cost of all the measures in the Bill and £86,000 per year to the present estimated annual cost of £120,000 per year. This is admittedly not a lot of money in the context of pubic expenditure as a whole, but an increase of over 70 per cent. is relatively large when one considers that it will make only one provision retrospective. There are other provisions, not least the improvements in assistance to widows, that hon. Members might, for similar compassionate reasons, also wish to see given retrospective effect.
This brings me to the main reason why the Government do not feel able, despite


our sympathy for those affected, to support the amendment. It is, in short, because it is a breach of the no-retrospection principle, which, as I explained a number of times during earlier stages of the Bill, is quite central in public service pension arrangements. For many years, improvements in public service pension schemes have been restricted to contributing or future Members at the time the improvements are introduced. This is because to make improvements restrospective would greatly increase the cost of every measure. It would require higher contributions from existing Members or necessitate fewer improvements.
Once you begin to allow retrospection, it is almost impossible to decide where the line should be drawn. A measure of retrospection merely shifts the boundary between those who have and those who have not to a new point, and, since usually the new boundary cannot logically be defended, the result simply creates new and even more intense feelings of unfairness. The line has, of course, to be drawn somewhere, and the fairest point is undoubtedly the time when new or additional benefits are introduced and when higher contributions, if any, become payable. This has always been the rule.
There are many groups of former employees up and down the country—groups for which there will in many cases be a considerable measure of sympathy; the pre-1950 Service widows and local government industrial staff are two cases in point—who have not received benefits because this rule was applied in their pension schemes. If we agree to this amendment, we shall be conferring on our former Members improvements that are not allowed to others in the community. It might cause resentment to those who have less control over their own pension arrangements.
I do not like having to ask the House to oppose the amendment, because the sense of grievance that has given rise to it is very real and understandable. Nevertheless, I think that the need for equity in this important respect between former Members of this place and former employees in many other walks of life now demands that the improvements in the Bill should be introduced in a way consistent with improvements in occupational pension schemes elsewhere. I

must therefore, with great regret, ask the House to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Paul Dean: I very much regret that the Minister is advising the House to disagree with the Lords in this amendment because it seems to me that what we are doing in the Bill is adding yet another anomaly to our parliamentary pension arrangements, whereas the amendment tries to avoid that new anomaly being added. The worst anomaly of all, in my view, is that there is no parliamentary pension at all for former Members of this House who retired before 1964, or, indeed, for their widows. There are at least 272 of these, and it seems to me that it is wholly wrong for this House to go on improving pensions for existing Members while leaving completely outside those who retired before 1964. I realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would not allow me to pursue that argument now.
12 midnight
The amendment at least tries to avoid another anomaly being introduced, because, under the Bill as it stands, without the amendment, existing Members will be able to count 15 years' service before 1964 for pension purposes but past Members will not be allowed to do that. We shall therefore have the situation that, for example, Members who retire in October of this year, if this Parliament ends then, will be able to count 15 years, whereas widows of Members who died earlier this year will be able to count only 10 years. I am making no party political point whatever, because all the hon. Members concerned sat on the Government side of the House. I submit to the House that it will be virtually impossible to persuade the widows of those Members that there is any equity in only 10 years for them whereas it is 15 years for those who retire a few months afterwards. I very much regret that the Government do not see their way to accepting the amendment.
One can argue that there should be no retrospection at all, but what we have done now is to create three classes of retrospection. I think that there is much to be said for a retrospective element, particularly when one takes into account not only that the pension scheme was not introduced until 1964 and that those who served in earlier years had no pensions but that many of the allowances that we


now have were not available to them either. In my view, there is an argument for saying that there should be an element of retrospection. Furthermore, many private occupational pension schemes are now introducing an element of retrospection for those who have retired. Therefore, I do not think that, in arguing as I am, we are arguing special privileges for ourselves. All that we would be doing is following some of the best practice in private occupational pension schemes.
When the Minister argues that we should not introduce retrospection, I find his argument wholly unconvincing, because under the Bill we are creating three classes of parliamentary pensioners: first, those who retired before October 1964—no retrospection whatsoever, and no pension whatsoever; secondly, those who retired before this Bill, who are able to count 10 years before 1964 for pension purposes; and, thirdly, those who retire after the Bill, who are able to count 15 years before 1964 for pension purposes. There is no rhyme or reason whatsoever in this. If we are to have retrospection, as I believe we should, it should apply to all.
The other argument which the Minister used, which again I found wholly unconvincing, is that the Bill is carrying out the recommendations of the Boyle report and that it is a package. That argument, however, has been blown sky high. The Government have been highly selective in picking parts of Boyle, rejecting other parts of Boyle and adding some elements which were not in Boyle at all. Did Boyle recommend tht our pensions should be based on notional salary rather than actual salary? No. Boyle was highly critical of that. Did Boyle say that we should go on ignoring those who retired before 1964? No. Boyle specifically drew the attention of Parliament to this "no pension" point and invited Parliament to consider whether, for those former Members over the age of 80, there should be some special provision.
Did Boyle recommend the amendment that we have just accepted relating to widowers' pensions? The answer is "No". The Miniser is wholly unconvincing when he says that the Government are carrying out the Boyle package. The Government are carrying out those

elements of Boyle which they wish to carry out. Others have been put on one side and further improvements have been added. The arguments that the Minister has put forward fail on all counts. We are now adding anomaly to anomaly, complexity to complexity.
There is one point on which I agree with the Minister. He made the point on Second Reading that it is wholly unsatisfactory to deal with such matters by main legislation. The sooner we move to a framework of general rules and have a body of trustees who can interpret the rules with discretion, the better. We have got into a wholly unsatisfactory position. I very much regret that the Minister has not seen fit to accept the powerful arguments that were put forward from both sides in the other place by noble lords with considerable experience in these matters. If this Lords amendment was accepted, we would be avoiding piling one more anomaly upon our pension arrangements.

12.7 a.m.

Mr. Robert Mellish: I begin by telling the Leader of the House that I believe that all those who are to benefit from the Bill, on both sides of the House, are deeply grateful to the Government for what they have done. I am a beneficiary of the main proposals. Having been here for 32 years, I shall have added to my years of service in this House, for pensionable purposes, not 10 but 15 years. From that point of view I am grateful. We have to put this into perspective. If this is not stated firmly and clearly, we are being mean and cheap. It was courageous and decent of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to do what he has done, because, as far as I am aware, Boyle did not recommend that either.
The story of salaries and pensions for hon. Members is well known by everyone. It is a sordid, sad story. I can turn the clock back. There are hon. Members on the Labour side—I will not name them—whose personal behaviour over this question of salaries and pensions has been disgraceful. The theme has been, to get cheap popularity, "Do nothing for Members of Parliament until something has been done for old-age pensioners." I do not know whether that could be called Left-wing or Right-wing. I know that I have always opposed that view.
Members of Parliament have been treated shamefully over the years. It was not until there was a new House and a new attitude that things changed. I pay tribute to the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw). He showed more courage than most Labour Leaders of the House. He was the man who implemented Boyle. He has a lot of guts.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that, in view of the economic conditions which the country has faced over the past few years, it was inevitable that he did what he did. I support him and understand and respect his attitude.
There are a number of noble Lords who were comrades of ours until they were elevated. I am never sure, when someone goes to the Lords, whether it is promotion or whether it is simply a case of their going to the mortuary. I can understand their point of view. My heart simply asks "If we are doing something for ourselves, why cannot we do it for them?". That is my natural instinct, and I feel very sorry when I am told that I cannot do this.
The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) does not convince me that whatever we do here might impress other people and other schemes. The hon. Member is an expert in the pension world. I am not. I am an amateur. But I cannot believe that, somehow, other pension schemes will say that the House of Commons has set a very bad example. Frankly, either there is justice in the case or is there is not. If there is justice in the case, surely it must be supported. It is as simple as that. It may be said that it will cost a great deal, but what is the cost as a proportion of the nation's expenditure, bearing in mind the billions of pounds of expenditure in which we are involved?
I am sick of the argument, and I have been for years, that we must never do anything decent or right for Members of the House of Commons because, somehow it may set the wrong precedent. That argument has been trundled out again and again. Members of Parliament are worthy of a decent salary and a decent pension. If they are not, they should not be here, or they should get nothing at all. There are some people who could come here and not take a salary. It would not matter

to them. But the vast majority of Members who come here are honourable men and women who do a first-class job, and they should be paid properly for doing it. Some of us have been saying that for years. We have not had a lot of support.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: Will my right hon. Friend agree, too, that those hon. Members who served for 15 years before 1964 were in themselves subsidising this House? They had a disgraceful salary, they had to pay for their own secretarial assistance, they had to pay their own postage and they had to pay their own costs of living in London. They could not possibly have provided for their own future.

Mr. Mellish: That is right, and they were not given decent consideration because we were all terrified of certain sections of the press. Certain newspapers would have spread the story about Members of Parliament looking after themselves and taking the money away from old-age pensions. That is absolute rubbish. If Members of Parliament were paid nothing at all, old-age pensioners would not benefit by a penny. That has nothing to do with the argument.
But we suffered this for years. I was involved in the argument years ago. Some of those who talk loudly now about pensions and salaries were not here to support the argument and put down motions. I said on Second Reading and I say again that the greatest destructive influence that we ever had was when Sir Hartley Shawcross, as he was then, came into the House one night, dressed in all his finery, having been to an important dinner somewhere. He spoke about the hardships of Members of Parliament and just about destroyed our case. I remember that very well. If there was ever a time that we did not need a friend, that was it.
I put this to my right hon. Friend. I am not sure how much it would cost. But let us suppose that the amendment was written into the Bill. Would it be a disaster?
I have been making some inquiries, because I am a little bit concerned about the terms of the amendment. I am advised that those who were here prior to 1964 and up to 1972 would not benefit, even if the amendment were carried. It would apply only to those after 1972.


Perhaps my right hon. Friend will say whether that is so. If it is, this is a crazy amendment and I do not know what we are all talking about. If, however, it is not the case and those who were here before 1964 would benefit, I say please let them have it. It would not cost the nation a fortune, and I assure my right hon. Friend that my constituents will not come to me next Friday complaining bitterly that something has been done for some very decent people.

Mr. Francis Pym: The House is appreciative of what the Government have done in accepting the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body and in introducing the Bill. In deciding to take that action, I am sure that they were assisted by the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), and, indeed, Back Benchers on both sides of the House. But in no way does that detract from the appreciation of the House for the introduction of the Bill. As the Minister of State said, the Government have actually gone further than their original undertaking in at least one important respect, and the House is grateful for that as well.
I turn to the amendment that we are discussing and the possibility of going yet further. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) deployed a strong case and indicated the anomalies that have been created by refusing to accept the amendment and the inequity of doing so. On the other hand, we must appreciate that we are in the process of moving from an age when there was no pension scheme not only in this House but elsewhere. I refer to the pre-1964 situation. In the 1940s and 1950s there were very few pension schemes as we now understand them. For the past 10 years or so the House, in common with outside organisations, both public and private, has been moving into a totally new area. We must recognise that in the transition it is inevitable that anomalies and inequities will arise.
12.15 a.m.
I am in sympathy with the amendment and the case that was made by my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). On the other

hand, we must recognise that there would be some strong restraints upon the Government in advising the House to accept the amendment.
In organising and arranging its own pensions, the House has a contribution to make in moving public opinion generally and in developing pension schemes generally. At the same time, we need to be careful not to put ourselves by our own vote in a position of actually being, and being seen to be, considerably ahead of pension schemes outside the House.
If I summarise the Minister of State correctly, he was saying that if we were to accept the amendment we would be going noticeably beyond what is today the current practice for those who retired some years ago. That is current practice in both the public and private sectors. It is for that reason that I would not feel able to support anyone in voting in favour of the amendment if anyone wanted to do so. We must get the balance right.
I feel that right hon. and hon. Members on the Front and Back Benches on both sides of the House are wanting to do their best to ensure that the House is not behind arrangements outside the House—that is a position that we enjoyed, if that is the right word, for a good many years—and that it uses its power and voice to move schemes generally rather than to put itself in an excessively favourable position.
For those reasons, I consider that it would be unwise for the House to go as far as the amendment proposes, although I am reluctant to say that I do not want to support the amendment. To those who have added to the view that we must ensure that those who retired a good many years ago should have the fairest and most generous deal possible, I and my right hon. and hon. Friends give our support and place ourselves in that lobby. We want to ensure that we do not exceed that responsibility.
I am grateful to the Government for what they have done. For our part, my right hon. and hon. Friends will ensure that the House does not lag behind in future.

Mr. George Cunningham: I want to make three points. First, in case there should be any confusion in the public's mind, we should make absolutely clear that there is


no Member of this House in the House at the present time, and no Member who can participate in the vote tonight, who has a personal interest in the outcome of the vote tonight. No Member who can vote tonight can have his pension increased whichever way the vote goes. Let the public and the press clearly understand that.
Second, it must be said that Members who had service in this House before 1964 were in the same position as we are in. They could vote the arrangements which dealt with their own salaries and their own pensions. If they did not do so, it was not because they were prevented from doing so or because a Government did not let them do so. They could have done so, and the question for us is, since they did not do so, whether we should do it for them retrospectively.
The third point is one made by the Minister when he said that if we were to adopt the amendment we would be going beyond what is common practice in most pension schemes outside. I agree with that, in spite of what has been said by the Opposition.
I shall give an illustration. In the last decade or so there has been a change in the arrangements that apply to former civil servants who become Member of this House or who take up other occupations. The change permits them to grant into a new pension scheme the equivalent contributions from their previous service as civil servants. That applies to any civil servant coming into the House at present. It does not apply to me as a former civil servant who quit the Civil Service before that change was made. It rightly does not apply to me.
I grieve for it and I feel the loss, but it rightly does not apply to me. It was an improvement made after I had left the service to which that improvement applies. That is the normal practice. It is a pity, but it happens in all pension schemes. It would be curious, to say the least, and rather undesirable if we were to breach that normal principle and introduce for past Members of this House the retrospective effect which is proposed in the Lords amendment. On that ground I shall oppose it.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) was in plain

disagreement with my arguments. I respect his view and I accept that his knowledge of private and public sectors is as great as mine. But comparisons can be made between our scheme and other public service schemes. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) has reminded us that this rule has been applied in the past. I have mentioned the pre-1950 widows of other ranks personnel in the Armed Forces who from time to time still claim a case for retrospective pensions.
Local government and industrial staff representing 200,000 people had no pensions before 1972 and received no back service credit when they became covered by the local government scheme. The principle of retrospection upon which I rely is that one does not make changes in schemes generally which apply to people who are no longer contributing members of a scheme at the time it is made.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) reminded us of the great sacrifice made by people who were Members of the House before 1964. He described the conditions which obtained then. I am sure everyone agrees that it was a disgraceful state of affairs. Gradually we are puting things right.
I cannot recommend the House to accept the amendment. I was asked about the technical meaning of the amendment. I am conscious that both in the Lords and the Commons much feeling has been expressed about the way in which former Members have been treated under our pension arrangements. This matter was referred to the Boyle Committee. It was considered, and it was recommended that we should not make changes and should not make payments to those who retired before the scheme was introduced.
Because of the sympathy in the House and because there has to be another reference to the Boyle Committee, I am prepared to submit this matter again to Boyle for further consideration. If the committee came to a different conclusion, we should have another opportunity to consider the matter. I sense that the House would agree to that. I undertake that we shall refer the matter to Boyle.

Mr. Edward du Cann: I am sure that that proposal will be widely


accepted. We should express our gratitude to the Minister. This is a very good way of getting out of a difficulty. However, the Minister will remember that during the debates in the Lords and the general consideration which many of us have given to these matters we have recognised that this is not the only anomaly and difficulty.
Would the Minister broaden the assurance that he has just given to the House and be willing to say that an anomaly will be examined with a view not merely to streamlining the scheme but to taking a once-for-all survey to ensure that all the anomalies are removed?

Mr. John Smith: While the right hon. Gentleman was making that interesting contribution to our debate, I had the opportunity of consulting my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I am authorised to say on his behalf and that of the Government that we would certainly be prepared to consult the right hon. Gentleman and others who have interested themselves in this and other matters. It is difficult to give a specific commitment now, but we shall certainly consult before the reference is made to see what we can do to accommodate the genuine concern that exists.
I have given a clear commitment, therefore, that the matter will be referred to the Boyle Committee the next time. Boyle must consider other matters, so that this is not an academic undertaking. In view of that commitment, and bearing in mind what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said, I hope that the House will agree, with great reluctance and regret, not to accept the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up a reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Bates, Mr. Pym, Mr. Roderick, Mr. John Smith and Mr. Weatherill; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. John Smith.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

TOURISM

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. James Hamilton.]

12.26 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: I hardly need remind the House that tourism is a very big business and that a lot of the credit for the size of it must go to the 1969 Act and to the British Tourist Authority. That does not mean that I am forgetting the industry.
The 12 million visitors we shall have this year will spend about £3,000 million in Britain and in fares to British air and sea carriers. That means that every day of the calendar year they will spend on average £9 million. That represents 6 per cent. of our total exports, invisible and visible. This is more than the exports of aircraft, ships, cars and beverages combined.
Those of us who meet in the all-party parliamentary tourism committee know of the BTA's great success, but we also know something of the problems. One of the greatest of them, for Londoners anyway, is the attraction of London. It is not only a problem. It is an opportunity. That we must recognise, since, if the tourists are concentrated in London, that gives the BTA and the regional and national organisations the opportunity to persuade them to go out into the country.
The load must be spread. In spite of all that has been done, even more must be done to ensure that foreign tourists spend more time outside London. I want them to spend it in this country. I was alarmed to read that Amsterdam was saying that its airport is now the third London airport. I should be interested in the Minister's comment on that.
I do not suggest that fewer people should come to London, but I do not want more to come. The tourist organisations have been successful in that 60 per cent. of the overseas tourists currently in this country will not be sleeping in London tonight. But we must spread this load further to places which are not traditional tourist areas. I think particularly of the north-east and the area around by constituency in Northamptonshire, which is the heart of the Midlands and is true English countryside.
It has fine churches. At least two of them—Lincoln Cathedral and Brixworth Church—are paid-up commercial members of the East Midlands Tourist Board. Everyone knows about Lincoln Cathedral, but Brixworth Church is less well known. It is Saxon and is probably the oldest church north of the Alps to have been in continuous use for Christian worship. In 1980 I shall no longer be able to say that it is on the edge of my constituency, but I shall be able to take part in its thirteen hundredth anniversary celebrations.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether we have anything to learn from other countries in spreading the load from the capital. I read of the BTA's director-general attending a European travel commission seminar in Zurich. Was this problem discussed? Have the Council of Europe and the European Parliament taken an interest in this problem?
There is something totally different that concerns me. The BTA's annual London visitors survey last year showed that 90 per cent. of the people who came to London had no complaints about the hotels or restaurants. That is fine. But, if one reads it the other way round, it means that 10 per cent. of the visitors did have a complaint. That is not good enough, especially as the complaints were twice as many last year as the year before. These are real complaints, not imagined complaints.
A month or two ago there was correspondence in the Financial Times about the bureaux de change charging excessive percentages for changing foreign money into sterling. I was able to write to the Financial Times and point out that I had asked a Question in the House and had found that the Department had never had any complaint at all about this. But we shall have to watch the matter very carefully.
A charge of 1 per cent. must be the standard rate. Thomas Cook has used that rate for 100 years. But, of course, one 'has to charge more if a bureau is open all night, or late at night or over the weekend. We accept that. But any increased rate must be justified.
Last July my hon. Friend referred to Government financial help being channelled in the future to selective assistance projects in development areas—the Pen-

nines, North Cornwall and Scarborough. What has happened about this? I am particularly interested in Scarborough because for a short time in 1961—I am the only Member of the House who can say so—when I was on my way to serve in Africa, I held the office of Steward of Her Majesty's Manor of Northstead, which, I was informed at the time, included the public gardens of Scarborough. How far has this development scheme gone? How far has it been a success? Are we to do more about it? Will it be expanded?
I think that we have got over the stage when we think at all of people coming to this country because of our weather. No one comes here to bask on our beaches, or to listen to the rustle of grass skirts or the tinkle of ice cubes in a long glass. They come for the other things. What have we got? We have plenty.
Sometimes we forget that we have got food, which is sometimes unusual but very good. We have cock-a-leekie, kedgeree, haggis, and devilled kidneys. I shall not refer to mustard, because I remember one of the Marx brothers saying that he liked mustard but he prefer red to have a little bit of beef to go with it. We have summer pudding, a characteristic English dish. On a summer's day, to warm people up, we could have a little plum pudding.
Catering and serving, like cooking, must be regarded as a craft and treated as such in apprenticeships and in technical colleges. What inducements, financial and otherwise, are the Government giving to developing such training? I know that in the last three years the number of foreigners working in our hotels has declined from 9,000 to 1,500. But has the standard been maintained by trained British workers?
I refer to the other attractions that there are to coming to this country. Our language and history, of course, are important. Our theatre in London is as good as any in the world, and it is kept alive by tourists. In this way everyone benefits—tourists, Londoners and people in Britain generally. The next big stage must be to promote better theatre in the provinces.
I have referred to a sense of history and, indeed, of obligation because of our history. For example, the United States


has inherited from us our English common law. What could be more appropriate than that every few years the American Bar Association comes here and meets in Westminster Hall, where our courts sat for many hundreds of years? It is part of their history just as it is of ours.
But the American Bar Association comes in July, when London is overcrowded. I am told that the last time it came there were over 10,000 people including wives, secretaries and so on. I think that the Government should use their powers of hospitality to discourage such large organisations from coming in July and August and encourage them to come, as far as they can, later in the year—for example, October, which is more appropriate because that is when our courts happen to be sitting and when Parliament is seldom in session, at least at the beginning of the month, so that there would be much less overcrowding.
Apart from the United States, there are Australia, Canada and New Zealand which have close connections with this country in history and language, while India alone of the Asian countries has preserved the rule of law and parliamentary democracy. There is no season in Britain for observing our democratic and legal institutions, and people can come at any time of the year. There is no need to crowd into the summer.
Last year, I was worried about complacency creeping into the British tourist industry. Today, after a year in which I have met many of those concerned with the large-scale organisation and operation of tourism, I can report that there is no sign of complacency. The fact that there was a 3 per cent. decline in the number of people coming to this country in the first quarter of the year has been a big enough jolt to the industry.
All those in the industry recognise that there is a challenge to be faced, and with the encouragement and help of the Government—and they have been of help which I acknowledge, in schemes like the industrial building allowances—they are confident that they can maintain tourism as one of our leading industries.
I summarise. Spreading the load is important, and it must be spread not only around the country but around the months

of the year. The visitors survey shows that complaints in London were twice as high last year as the year before. There have as yet been no complaints about the money-changing, but we must watch that position very carefully. What has happened about north Cornwall, the Pennines, and Scarborough? What has happened about British catering and food? What about the standard of our training of people who have taken the place of the foreigners who served us so well in the hotels?
I can no longer say that there is any danger of complacency. We are generally agreed that there is not. I am grateful for what the Government have done. Our history—and we must remember that our weather is not what attracts people—can help us to sell ourselves because we can be ourselves; we are a former imperial Power; we are accustomed to look out on the world and to meeting foreigners; we are accustomed to dealing with foreigners.
We have the unusual advantage of having four different peoples—English, Scots, Welsh and Irish—living in our comparatively small country. Our experience and our history of tolerance, with its spirit of live and let live, make Britain a very pleasant place to visit.

12.42 a.m.

Mr. Robert Adley: May I first declare an interest in the tourist industry, which I always do, and may I secondly thank the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) for allowing me a brief intervention in the debate? He is the chairman and I am the vice-chairman of the all-party tourism committee. We have always striven to maintain, and we have succeeded in maintaining, an all-party approach to the subject.
I should like to congratulate the Government. I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget was the first in which any Chancellor actually mentioned the tourist industry. This was well noticed by the industry and much appreciated from the point of view of the industrial building allowances, but the aim still remains parity between the service sector, represented by the hotel and catering industry, and manufacturing industry.
The Minister knows of my concern about the future of the British Tourist Authority as a result of the changes under the Scotland Bill. The right hon. Member for Kettering mentioned marketing and facilities outside London. This is a job for the industry within a framework established by the BTA. What concerns me about the changes is that we are exchanging knowledge for geography and experience for politics. I do not think that that will improve the efficiency of the BTA.
It is true that the big hotel groups are on the whole doing very well, but an ailing economy in the last few years has hit the small hotels and guest houses particularly hard, especially in the traditional resorts. I know that the Minister is aware of this and concerned about it.
Finally, I emphasise the point made by the right hon. Gentleman about the need for training. The attitude in this country towards service industries needs to be changed considerably, and this is a job for the education system as much as anything else. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned crafts. Tourism is a great craft industry, but unless and until we can persuade our young people of this we shall still have to rely very heavily on overseas workers to make our industry efficient.

12.44 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Michael Meacher): My right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) has made a speech which befits his position as chairman of the all-party committee on tourism and which I think was witty, detailed and very well informed, as one would expect, and closely argued. He raised a large number of points, and I shall try to deal briefly with each of them.
My right hon Friend's theme was that of spreading the blessings of tourism not only seasonally but also geographically. He will know that the Government's policy on this matter has been quite clear since 1974, in particular in the guidelines on the application of section 4 expenditures to the development areas and special development areas, where we emphasised the need to make fuller use of the scenic and other touristic assets in those parts of the country which would benefit from the development of tourism.
We asked the tourist boards to emphasise this in the course of their work. The aim, as my right hon. Friend knows, was not to divert existing trade from established resorts to new areas but to tap the growth in visitors, including overseas visitors in particular, but not only them, and to encourage them to leave the beaten track and to try new areas in Britain.
For British people, the emphasis has been more on extending the season and on exploring the less familiar parts of Britain instead of taking a package tour abroad. I think it is fair to say that the tourist boards' response to this initiative has been excellent. The attractions of the rest of Britain besides London and the traditional resorts, which my right hon. Friend praised so highly and so rightly, are now featured prominently in their literature. New heritage routes and trails have been developed to encourage people to visit particular localities. Joint marketing ventures have contributed to the retention and growth of Continental traffic through northern and western ports. Off-season and weekend promotions have brought valuable extra business to hostels in all parts of the country at their less busy times, and plans are afoot to encourage the increasing numbers of overseas motorists to undertake more adventurous and wide-ranging itineraries.
My right hon. Friend asked for the Government's view of Amsterdam referring to itself as London's third airport. I think it is not for me to comment on the way in which a foreign airport chooses to market its services, but I will say that Schipol is not one of the options which the Government will consider for handling the longer-term demand for air transport in the London area.
My right hon. Friend made reference to the London visitor survey. He quoted the statistics about the 10 per cent. of complaints. The response to questions about the problems encountered by visitors to London certainly varies from year to year. Last year fewer visitors found overcrowding a problem. The strengthening of the pound inevitably made prices less attractive, in terms of foreign currency, in comparison with the previous year. I should also add that a broader survey of all overseas visitors indicated that last year over 50 per cent. found


prices less expensive than in their own countries. That, after all, is a very relevant comparison.
Mention was also made of bureaux de change charges. As a result of complaints, the Bank of England recently carried out a survey of one-third of the bureaux operating in the London area. In the Bank's view, the charges displayed were not unreasonable. The higher commission rates may, of course, reflect the cost of providing a service outside normal banking hours and at the weekend. One would expect there to be a certain higher charge for that service. But, if my right hon. Friend has evidence of unreasonable rates of commission being charged, certainly we can ask the Price Commission to investigate.
My right hon. Friend also asked about what was happening in the tourism growth areas such as the North Pennines, Scarborough and Devon and Cornwall. After a lot of hard work by all concerned in the region, I approved the first of these schemes in outline a few weeks ago. I am pleased to have this opportunity to pay tribute to the local authorities, the Government agencies and other interests, including those from the private sector, in getting together to stimulate tourism in a wide area of the North Pennines while at the same time—this is very important, because it is an issue which has arisen in some of these areas—doing everything possible to safeguard the essential environmental character of the area.
My right hon. Friend also inquired specifically about progress at Scarborough. I am afraid that I cannot give him any special news about the Manor of Northstead or about the gardens of Scarborough, but I can tell him that I am still awaiting substantive proposals from the working party concerned. I know that the Scarborough scheme was delayed because the initial proposals for the alterations to the Spa Hall failed to secure listed building consent after a public inquiry. I understand, however, that revised proposals, taking account of the inspector's report, are being energetically pursued, and I hope to receive a submission soon.
I was then asked whether we were doing enough in respect of the catering

industry. My right hon. Friend mentioned a number of mouth-watering English foods. I hope that that message is conveyed in the right quarters. The problems of the catering industry are being studied by the hotel and catering economic development council and is sub-groups. In particular, I should mention the now completed work of the catering industry study group, which produced "Trends in Catering", a booklet incorporating a large amount of data on the catering industry which had previously not been made available. This was intended as a benchmark to assist the industry in its future development and in its investment decisions. On the recommendations of the EDC, the catering supplies steering group is at present investigating the feasibility of establishing a body to represent the interests of the catering industry as a whole. As my right hon. Friend will know, the industry is at present represented by numerous trade associations.
In the same context, my right hon. Friend asked about standards and whether they were being maintained by British waiters and cooks in the light of the drastic reduction in foreign staff in hotels over the last three years. With regard to foreign workers, although the annual quotas for work permits for the industry have been reduced drastically, a significant number of those issued with permits since January 1973 have remained here, as, indeed, one would have expected, with the approval of the Home Office. Many have remained in hotel and catering work. There is no reason to believe that the reduction in the annual quotas has affected standards generally.
It must be remembered also that training for the industry with the training opportunities scheme continues to expand throughout the country, and last year the number of people successfully completing courses was no less than 50 per cent. up on the previous year.
On the question of overseas conferences—my right hon. Friend mentioned one in particular which chose July-August, with all the inconvenience and congestion that that causes—the Government have very little control over the timing of such conferences. Very few take place in the main holiday season. In fixing the dates,


organisers have to take account of the programme of the international organisation involved or of the wishes of the delegate countries.
However, if my right hon. Friend is referring to Government hospitality which is provided in conferences not organised by the Government, that hospitality is in fact confined to a single evening reception whenever the conference is held. There is really no scope for variation in that.
My right hon. Friend mentioned complacency in terms of what he described as the decline in the number of visitors in the first quarter of this year. He said that this had been a jolt for the industry and he suggested that this might have been an antidote for the complacency which he previously feared.
On numbers, I think that my right hon. Friend may perhaps be going a little too far. What we have experienced is a slowing down in the rate of increase rather than an absolute decline. In fact, the BTA is now forecasting about 4 per cent. growth in overseas visitors this year. I hope and believe that my right hon. Friend is right about a lessened risk of complacency. There could be nothing more destructive of standards, above all in a service industry, than the belief—which is inevitably wrong in the long term—that the customers will keep on coming anyway.
I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend said about the BTA and the Government in their role towards the tourist industry. I agree also that the BTA has done a very good job. It would not be right to forget the ETB and the other national tourist boards, and the non-statutory regional boards, all of whom contribute to the success of the industry and the extension of its benefits throughout the country.
Let me conclude by briefly summing up the Government's main strategy for the tourism industry. First, there are the newly-announced initial allowances for hotel construction. I am grateful for the reference by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) to the point about the Budget. I do not know whether it was the first time this had ever been mentioned in a Budget, but these allowances demonstrate convincingly the importance that the Government attach to tourism, which is now our second largest earner of foreign currency—a remarkable achievement. This is a most convincing demonstration of the importance which the Government attach to tourism. The allowances will stimulate new investment through the country, at an estimated cost in a full year of £15 million. This is additional to the value of the existing allowances for plant and machinery.
Secondly, I have already mentioned the selective financial help available to stimulate tourism investment in many of the more beautiful and remote parts of Britain, including most of Wales and almost the whole of Scotland. Thirdly, the industry benefits from the grants-in-aid given to the statutory tourist boards, currently almost £19 million a year, most of which is used to promote visits to and within Britain and to spread the benefits of tourism more evenly throughout the country. We take my right hon. Frend's message to heart tonight. No doubt this could be done more thoroughly and more fully.
The industry has served Britain well in the last few years. With these incentives and help, I have every confidence that it will go on doing so in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to One o'clock.